Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

Atheism: A Christian Refutation

1568101121

Comments

  • vinta18 wrote:
    RE: Darwin. He is not a prophet. He formulated a theory that is still being improved upon by scientists. The biggest mistake of anyone trying to discredit science is the mistaken notion that what Darwin (or GAlileo or Einstein) said is gospel truth. :) Science constantly corrects itself.


    Science constantly corrects itself.

    That's true. How sure are we that the science that we know right
    now is true? If science constantly corrects itself, it implies that science
    was wrong in some things before and it needs correction after that.
  • green gringreen grin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    vinta18 wrote:
    ^ Yes, but having 6 children also fulfills that "prophecy." The prediction is generic enough. Wala namang may sabing 5 children ONLY. And it's up to the apologists to justify whether they're considering the actual sex or the sexual preference of the children. So gays and lesbians still count as boys and girls.
    of course not. 5 children is DIFFERENT from 6 children. you are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged. i can only hope that none of your love ones see what you just wrote.
    RE: Darwin. He is not a prophet. He formulated a theory that is still being improved upon by scientists. The biggest mistake of anyone trying to discredit science is the mistaken notion that what Darwin (or GAlileo or Einstein) said is gospel truth. :) Science constantly corrects itself.
    don't you dare say i'm discrediting science. i'm discrediting the FICTION THAT Is EVOLUTION. evolution is NOT science. darwin was precise: no transitional fossils, NO EVOLUTION. where are your transitional fossils?
  • green grin wrote:
    you're right - it couldn't. you know why? because the christian CORE belief has been consistent for the past 2000 years. and why has it stayed consistent for 2000 years? because it was right THEN, and it is right NOW.
    This however does not preclude the possibility of shifting goalposts. Are you sure that what you consider as "core beliefs" now are what was considered "core beliefs" then?
    green grin wrote:
    you say the theory of evolution is evolving. what you are admitting is that darwin was WRONG in his CORE belief and therefore must be modified and changed. and you are saying that it is a good thing that your belief changes when science shows that your previous belief was wrong? does the word "flaky" mean anything to you?
    Bingo! Science does not make any claim to absolute certainty when it comes to the basic assumptions of their paradigm (or any scientific claim for that matter). Therefore science does not preclude the possibility of Darwin being wrong in his "core beliefs". Due to this fact then, I would presume scientific claims are always "wrong", at least according to how you use the word "wrong" (which is essentially conflating falsifiable with falsified).
    green grin wrote:
    what do you mean "creationists (are) trying poke imaginary holes into the theory of evolution...to support their belief?" christianity PRECEDED the lie that is evolution. the belief in transitional fossils is evolution's foundation, and it failed miserably. christians don't need to poke holes into the theory of evolution (and thank you for admitting it is a theory, by the way), because the condition that Darwin himself set for the veracity of his theory was never met.
    Creationists start with assumptions and fit observations to said assumptions. "Evolutionists" presumably starts with observations and then makes assumptions based on such observations. And I would probably agree with your claim on evolution's veracity if transitional fossils is the only foundation of evolution. Unlike some belief systems, science does not regard its practicioners (and consequently their claims) as infallible no matter how great their contribution is. Nothing is stopping scientists from picking and choosing. (reminds me of that thread on cafeteria catholics :bop: )
    green grin wrote:
    re fitting of animals in the ark. you know i had this discussion five years ago and i said that NOT ALL animal species we know today went to the ark. today's coyote or dingo, for instance, would be a descendant of wolf.
    Gasp! Speciation events?! Say it isn't so!
    green grin wrote:
    so what was the illustration about? monkeys and apes following man to the rest room? dont' accuse me of fallacious arguments, explain to me that illustration.
    Strawman. Hint: Is a common descendant a man or an ape?

    Hmm... there's that "evolution is just a theory" comment again. Looks like the aborted lecture on the method and philosophy of science I was reserving for kapitangkiko will get it's time here.
  • Oneiros wrote:
    Strawman. Hint: Is a common descendant a man or an ape?

    I am sure that green_grin will answer this... but I would like to
    post this...
    Neither... accdng to evolutionists, apes and men have commond
    ancestor, but it is not an ape, and surely not a man. I wonder
    what that common ancestor look like... :rotlfmao:

    This thread now becomes an evolution thread... hehehe
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    green grin wrote:
    that explains the sad state of our educational system. and that wasn't a frivolous quip - i'm dead serious.

    actually, it doesn't. how can you conclude anything from such a small sample? invalid argument.
    you're right - it couldn't. you know why? because the christian CORE belief has been consistent for the past 2000 years. and why has it stayed consistent for 2000 years? because it was right THEN, and it is right NOW.
    you're actually right on some aspects. now as to whether these core beliefs are actually true is another matter. another side-issue would be which "christian core beliefs" are being espoused by which "christian denominations. opening a new can of worms, are we?
    you say the theory of evolution is evolving. what you are admitting is that darwin was WRONG in his CORE belief and therefore must be modified and changed. and you are saying that it is a good thing that your belief changes when science shows that your previous belief was wrong? does the word "flaky" mean anything to you?
    wrong. the core belief of darwin was that different species evolve from a common ancestor, not that species necessarily turn into other species. the absence of transitional fossils invalidates his auxillary theory that evolution happens gradually - not that evolution happens at all. also, science does not necessarily aim at what is true, only what can be sufficiently justified using current evidence. it is unfortunate that people who think they know more than they do cannot understand this basic principle.
    what do you mean "creationists (are) trying poke imaginary holes into the theory of evolution...to support their belief?" christianity PRECEDED the lie that is evolution. the belief in transitional fossils is evolution's foundation, and it failed miserably. christians don't need to poke holes into the theory of evolution (and thank you for admitting it is a theory, by the way), because the condition that Darwin himself set for the veracity of his theory was never met.
    invalid first sentence and false premise. the fact that christianity preceeded evolution does not necesarily imply anything about a relation between the two (in fact, darwin was studying to be a theologian prior to the galapagos trip ;) ) also, as stated several times before, transitional fossils are not the core of evolutionary theory, since evolution may happen even without them. strawman.
    re fitting of animals in the ark. you know i had this discussion five years ago and i said that NOT ALL animal species we know today went to the ark. today's coyote or dingo, for instance, would be a descendant of wolf.
    so some species indeed *gasp!* evolved?
    so what was the illustration about? monkeys and apes following man to the rest room? dont' accuse me of fallacious arguments, explain to me that illustration.
    those were representative of species. did you seriously interpret them as a single organism changing through time?
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    green grin wrote:
    no contradiction. read carefully and understand (you can move your lips if it helps):

    1) anyone (who has the constitutional qualifications) can be president of the philippines.

    2) YOU have the qualifications to be president of the philippines.

    3) it is POSSIBLE that you can be president (because you have the constitutional qualifications and maybe because the voters want the country to just go down the drain)

    4) but you will NEVER be president (i know this because you just won't)

    so, this is an instance where an event that COULD occur (meaning, it is not an impossibility), did not occur. and you said that ANY event that could occur, given enough time, WILL occur.

    do this - print out our exchange and distribute it to your students. and without threatening to fail them, ask them to write a paper on who they think makes more sense. you can always lie to me about the results, but this is more FOR YOUR education.

    if i do that, do you promise not to cower in shame when i get the replies?

    frankly, i cannot imagine how you can believe that something is possible, yet never happen. by definition, a possible event is an event which can happen. on the other hand to say that something is impossible means, by definition, that something cannot happen. therefore by virtue of logical equivalence, something which is possible can happen and something which is not possible cannot happen. conversely, something which can happen is possible, and something which cannot happen is not possible or impossible. so to say that my presidency is possible, but can never happen means that something which is possible cannot ever happen - a possible impossible event! how's that for twisted logic! do you want a demonstration using truth-tables or symbolic notation?(actually i've done this more than once before with mordecai and all i got was "i don't need to understand your truth-tables blah blah"). you can send it to a logician if you want. like i said, you are free to prove me wrong but you have to give sufficient evidence for your claim. otherwise, your claims are to be classified as opinions - equally as valid as their negative counterparts.


    p.s. personal attacks don't work with me. please try to be more objective.
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    la_flash wrote:
    Science constantly corrects itself.

    That's true. How sure are we that the science that we know right
    now is true? If science constantly corrects itself, it implies that science
    was wrong in some things before and it needs correction after that.

    we cannot be sure that what we know right now is true, but the evidence we have is strong enough to support it against other competing theories. falsified does not necesarily mean utterly false. for instance, newton's law of gravitation was falsified by einstein's general relativity. does this mean that newton's gravitational theory is false?

    now, green grin just admitted that his belief cannot be falsified nor changed. this is bad science since it assumes that we know all there is to know about something. this does not mean that it is false, but what evidence do we have to support this claim? it's practically impossible to prove an actual impossibility.
  • green gringreen grin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Oneiros wrote:
    This however does not preclude the possibility of shifting goalposts. Are you sure that what you consider as "core beliefs" now are what was considered "core beliefs" then?
    yes, that jesus christ, the son of God, came to earth and died for our sins. that is the core christian belief - it was true THEN and it is true NOW.

    it is evolution that moves its goalpost: slow gradual transitional changes into punctuated equilibrium.
    Bingo! Science does not make any claim to absolute certainty when it comes to the basic assumptions of their paradigm (or any scientific claim for that matter). Therefore science does not preclude the possibility of Darwin being wrong in his "core beliefs". Due to this fact then, I would presume scientific claims are always "wrong", at least according to how you use the word "wrong" (which is essentially conflating falsifiable with falsified).
    ano ba talaga, bingo or roullette?

    traipse around the rhetorics all you want. even by your own admission, science has proven darwin and evolution wrong. what you are doing is creating new theories in order to keep a bankrupt thought alive because otherwise you would have to concede to intelligent design.
    Creationists start with assumptions and fit observations to said assumptions. "Evolutionists" presumably starts with observations and then makes assumptions based on such observations. And I would probably agree with your claim on evolution's veracity if transitional fossils is the only foundation of evolution. Unlike some belief systems, science does not regard its practicioners (and consequently their claims) as infallible no matter how great their contribution is. Nothing is stopping scientists from picking and choosing. (reminds me of that thread on cafeteria catholics :bop: )
    Baliktarin mo yung sinabi mo "Evolutionists start with assumptions and fit observations to said assumptions." you're right that scientists can pick and choose according to the evidence they have. they have dropped evolution.

    Christians had AN ACTUAL ENCOUNTER with a man called Jesus who said he was the son of God and that he would die and be raised 3 days later. AND HE DID JUST THAT. there were numerous eye witnesses - numerous enough to have billions of adherents to this day. and don't compare that with islam or hinduism either - they make no claims of eyewitnesses of supernatural events.
    Gasp! Speciation events?! Say it isn't so!
    what happens when you cross a horse and a donkey? no, not a monkey, but a mule.

    the difference there is that you think given enough time (millions and millions of years) two orangutans would make out and presto! out comes oneiros. all the orangutans that ever lived could have orgies for millions of years and they will always have orangutans as offfsprings.
    Hmm... there's that "evolution is just a theory" comment again. Looks like the aborted lecture on the method and philosophy of science I was reserving for kapitangkiko will get it's time here.
    oh, evolution is a fact? then per gekokujo's advice, i ask again: WHERE ARE YOUR TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS?
  • green grin wrote:
    of course not. 5 children is DIFFERENT from 6 children. you are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged. i can only hope that none of your love ones see what you just wrote.

    don't you dare say i'm discrediting science. i'm discrediting the FICTION THAT Is EVOLUTION. evolution is NOT science. darwin was precise: no transitional fossils, NO EVOLUTION. where are your transitional fossils?

    There have been discoveries of transitional fossils (or "missing links" as commonly used) over the past decades.

    Also not all remains can turn into surviving fossils as they can be destroyed for many reasons. It needs special conditions before biotic/organic material turns into fossils. Some could have been eaten by their predators and so on.
  • green gringreen grin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    actually, it doesn't. how can you conclude anything from such a small sample? invalid argument.
    while you know argumentation and fallacy terms you don't seem to know how to apply it in real life situations.
    you're actually right on some aspects. now as to whether these core beliefs are actually true is another matter. another side-issue would be which "christian core beliefs" are being espoused by which "christian denominations. opening a new can of worms, are we?
    the veracity of the christian claim isn't at issue here - it's the bankrupt claim of evolution that is on deck.

    see, that's what i mean about my first comment. you're a logic teacher, yet you muddle the issues by introducing irrelevant material so that you won't have to answer a losing proposition.
    wrong. the core belief of darwin was that different species evolve from a common ancestor, not that species necessarily turn into other species. the absence of transitional fossils INVALIDATES HIS AUXILLARY THEORY that evolution happens gradually - not that evolution happens at all. also, science does not necessarily aim at what is true, only what can be sufficiently justified using current evidence. it is unfortunate that people who think they know more than they do cannot understand this basic principle.
    is this what you teach the kids?

    "the absence of transitional fossils INVALIDATES HIS AUXILLARY THEORY that evolution happens gradually - not that evolution happens at all.

    when darwin himself said otherwise? where's the logic in that?

    and then you say

    science does not necessarily aim at what is true, only what can be sufficiently justified using current evidence.

    science is used in the courts of law to determine the truthfulness of a plaintiff's or defendant's case. are you telling me that we should junk the use of science in the court room because it "does not necessarily aim at what is true."

    and finally you say:
    it is unfortunate that people who think they know more than they do cannot understand this basic principle
    .

    and i agree with you. the basic principle of evolution was stated by darwin, which you can't seem to understand, much less refute.
    invalid first sentence and false premise. the fact that christianity preceeded evolution does not necesarily imply anything about a relation between the two
    you were implying that for the christian belief to stand, it MUST FIRST poke holes on the theory of evolution. when darwin first formulated his theory, he said that evolution will be viable ONLY when it finds the transitional fossils. christians don't have to poke holes in a theory that has failed miserably in giving evidence to its claims.
    (in fact, darwin was studying to be a theologian prior to the galapagos trip ;) ) also, as stated several times before, transitional fossils are not the core of evolutionary theory, since evolution may happen even without them. strawman.
    then admit it - darwin was wrong and i will go away. :)
    so some species indeed *gasp!* evolved?
    what happens when you cross a horse and a donkey? no, not a monkey, but a mule.

    the difference there is that you think given enough time (millions and millions of years) two orangutans would make out and presto! out comes ischaramoochie. all the orangutans that ever lived could have orgies for millions of years and they will always have orangutans as offfsprings.
  • green gringreen grin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    There have been discoveries of transitional fossils (or "missing links" as commonly used) over the past decades.

    Also not all remains can turn into surviving fossils as they can be destroyed for many reasons. It needs special conditions before biotic/organic material turns into fossils. Some could have been eaten by their predators and so on.
    at last, someone with balls.

    please post these discoveries of transitional fossils.
  • no worries, by the way, which balls? upper or lower or behind?? ;)

    http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm#Transitionals

    these collections are back-ups with intensive studies of different field of science, each time more coming and counting with the advancement of DNA research.
  • green gringreen grin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    if i do that, do you promise not to cower in shame when i get the replies?
    of course not. just don't flunk the students who disagree with your points. otherwise, mauubusan ka ng estudyante.
    frankly, i cannot imagine how you can believe that something is possible, yet never happen.
    let's cut it here and try it again:

    is it possible that it would rain tomorrow? of course.

    if it doesn't rain tomorrow, does that mean the possibility NEVER existed? of course not - we just saw that raining tomorrow is a possibility.
    p.s. personal attacks don't work with me. please try to be more objective.
    nothing personal - i treat everyone who don't get simple concepts the same way.
  • green gringreen grin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    now, green grin just admitted that his belief cannot be falsified nor changed.
    correct. and that FYI - IS A GOOD THING!
    this is bad science since it assumes that we know all there is to know about something.
    correct. like atheists KNOW FOR SURE that there is NO GOD.
  • green grin wrote:
    science does not necessarily aim at what is true, only what can be sufficiently justified using current evidence.

    science is used in the courts of law to determine the truthfulness of a plaintiff's or defendant's case. are you telling me that we should junk the use of science in the court room because it "does not necessarily aim at what is true."
    in criminal cases, the highest standard of proof to which parties standing before a court of law aspire is evidence sufficient to justify a position “beyond a reasonable doubt”. in civil cases, the standard assigns the favor of the court to the party who manages to establish “a preponderance of evidence” aka the balance of probabilities in its, err, favor.

    both are clearly in line with the aim of science as stated by the logic professor. it should be remembered that even Supreme Court decisions can be overturned should new evidence emerge, without any fault being assigned to the jurist penning the original finding. clearly, a verdict from a court of law should not be used to support notions of absolute truth, regardless of their source.

    true, witnesses in court place their hands on the bible to swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", but kindly remember that the purpose of this oath is to make the witness liable for the content of his testimony, so that sanctions can be enforced in the event incontrovertible evidence proving the witness' deliberate distortion of events surfaces. that possibility being implicitly accepted, it is equally a mistake to, err, mistake sworn testimony as an endorsement of the notion of absolute truth.

    don’t mind me. just a lizard on the wall. :p
  • green gringreen grin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    no worries, by the way, which balls? upper or lower or behind?? ;)

    http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm#Transitionals
    you've got balls alright, but no brains.

    what you showed me are more fanciful "drawings" and charts that exist only in the delirious minds of evolutionists. i'm asking for pictues of transitinal fossils.

    google some more like what the others are doing and see if you can find any - and you won't, so START worrying. in the meantime, let the logic professor show us how NOT to argue logically.
  • green gringreen grin PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    gekokujo wrote:
    in criminal cases, the highest standard of proof to which parties standing before a court of law aspire is evidence sufficient to justify a position “beyond a reasonable doubt”. in civil cases, the standard assigns the favor of the court to the party who manages to establish “a preponderance of evidence” aka the balance of probabilities in its, err, favor.

    both are clearly in line with the aim of science as stated by the logic professor. it should be remembered that even Supreme Court decisions can be overturned should new evidence emerge, without any fault being assigned to the jurist penning the original finding. clearly, a verdict from a court of law should not be used to support notions of absolute truth, regardless of their source.

    don’t mind me. just a lizard on the wall. :p
    blah-blah-blah - typical, you make a long-winded argument over a small point that is only tangentially germane to the discussion and think that you win the whole case. show me your transitional fossils, gekotuko (lizard ka kamo, eh).
  • green grin wrote:
    while it is impressive if one gives a timetable, a prediction of an event uncertain DOES NOT REQUIRE a timetable. if i say you will have 5 children, 3 boys and 2 girls, and it happens, then what i said would be prophetic. why? because you could instead have 6 children, 2 gays, and 3 lesbians and 1 puppy (or a myriad of other permutations) and i'd be wrong. it's little wonder why your conclusions are wrong, because your PREMISES ARE WRONG!

    say hello to decoy47 for me.

    Again such a prediction has a timetable. I never said that predictions without a timetable can't be considered prophecies only that a prophecy is amazing based on how exact the timetable is and that prophecies without a timetable have very little value and only the gullible fall for them.

    What premises and what conclusions?

    Hmmm... I see we have an angry christian here. :lol:
  • Possibilities and Probability.

    Is something probable will happen given enough time? I don't think so....

    a. Getting 1000000 consecutive 6 in every roll of a die is probable but virtually
    impossible.
    b. Letting a chimpanzee strike different keys in a typewriter for an ample amount of
    time and having that chimpanzee produce an intelligible message such as
    "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" is probable and yet virtually
    impossible. Much more so, if we expect him to reproduce a novel such as
    "Luha ng Buwaya" - that would be crazy.

    Anything is probable if it is a part of sample spaces.

    It is almost a "miracle" or a "prophecy fulfilled" if something virtually impossible
    happens.
  • green grin wrote:
    ano ba talaga, bingo or roullette?

    traipse around the rhetorics all you want. even by your own admission, science has proven darwin and evolution wrong. what you are doing is creating new theories in order to keep a bankrupt thought alive because otherwise you would have to concede to intelligent design.
    Re-quote:
    Me wrote:
    Bingo! Science does not make any claim to absolute certainty when it comes to the basic assumptions of their paradigm (or any scientific claim for that matter). Therefore science does not preclude the possibility of Darwin being wrong in his "core beliefs". Due to this fact then, I would presume scientific claims are always "wrong", at least according to how you use the word "wrong" (which is essentially conflating falsifiable with falsified).
    Emphasis added. So where did I say what I purportedly said? (i.e. "even by your own admission, science has proven darwin and evolution wrong") Can someone please elaborate on falsifiable vs. falsified and as to how science employs these two concepts?

    RoT really needs a primer on informal logic and on the method and philosophy of science...
Sign In or Register to comment.