|
On April 19 2007 20:44 yisun518 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:41 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 20:39 yisun518 wrote:
This is not constructive argument... It's pretty much, i dont know jack, and you dont know jack either argument...
When we are taught something in Science, some retards can just memorize it, but many question it, thats why Science is ever evolving and self-correcting. Oh yeah? What an odd argument... Question it eh? Yeah.. I was one of those people that questioned and didn't get any answers. Still waiting for you to disprove 1 line of the bible thank you. Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt. I tried to avoid attacking you personally, but now i have to say, you need to understand how philosophy and logical reasoning works. quoting myself Show nested quote +There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
On April 19 2007 20:45 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:44 yisun518 wrote:
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt. Oh yeah? And still, you must choose which side to believe ^^ I'll believe mine.
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
|
On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem
And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old 
Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
|
On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
you are not getting my point.
u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning),
someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning.
mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments.
let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this.
Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
On April 19 2007 21:05 yisun518 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption. you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning. mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments. let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this. Show nested quote +Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt.
So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts.
Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
|
On April 19 2007 21:10 DemQn wrote:A creationist comicA refutation of the aboveThe scariest thing is that the comic is it's own parody. The arguments made by creationist posters in this thread are reminiscent of those used in this tract.
there are some good reasonings back and forth pro and againsts religion.
and usually religion is tied to OMNIGOD, and atheists often love to target reasonings that hold beliefs in Omnigod.
|
On April 19 2007 19:37 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 19:33 bine wrote:
It doesn't follow from the fact that certain things are inexplicable that everything in the bible is true. You have the burden of proof, not us. We don't have to prove God doesn't exist just like we don't have to prove that there aren't chickens the size of galaxies floating around the universe. I have the burden of proof to prove to you what your theory postulates about the beginning? Excuse me? You see, if people are going to start harassing me about my theory, am I not allowed to ask them questions about theirs? In this case, how did those particles get there? Or.. How did both sexes evolve at the same time along the same lines as perfect as they did? I'm sure those questions have answers to them, since people here seem to think evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? But no, instead you tell me the burden of proof is on me.. Hmm, sounds like you have no answer for a very simple question about one of the foundations of the big bang/evolutionary theory. That's a real sham.. Accuse me and Annor of being stupid and you can't even explain your own beliefs.
You sound incredibly silly. I'm not arguing for any beliefs, and misrepresenting science as being requiring of belief is a thin ploy. You don't have to prove what happened before the big bang, you have to prove that there's a giant white man in the sky who's benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent and yet created evil. Asking what came before the big bang is a meaningless attack on the theory anyway. Just because we don't know what happens before something doesn't mean we can't know that it happened. Besides, can't you just apply that question to God? Who or what created God? How did he get there?
And your question about the two sexes evolving perfectly at the time just demonstrates that you haven't really read anything or thought about evolution very much.
|
On April 19 2007 21:14 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:05 yisun518 wrote:On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption. you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning. mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments. let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this. Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt. So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts. Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students.
the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic.
evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies)
please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
|
On April 19 2007 21:19 bine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 19:37 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 19:33 bine wrote:
It doesn't follow from the fact that certain things are inexplicable that everything in the bible is true. You have the burden of proof, not us. We don't have to prove God doesn't exist just like we don't have to prove that there aren't chickens the size of galaxies floating around the universe. I have the burden of proof to prove to you what your theory postulates about the beginning? Excuse me? You see, if people are going to start harassing me about my theory, am I not allowed to ask them questions about theirs? In this case, how did those particles get there? Or.. How did both sexes evolve at the same time along the same lines as perfect as they did? I'm sure those questions have answers to them, since people here seem to think evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? But no, instead you tell me the burden of proof is on me.. Hmm, sounds like you have no answer for a very simple question about one of the foundations of the big bang/evolutionary theory. That's a real sham.. Accuse me and Annor of being stupid and you can't even explain your own beliefs. And your question about the two sexes evolving perfectly at the time just demonstrates that you haven't really read anything or thought about evolution very much.
Actually someone gave me an entire paper on it, here I highlighted some of the key points in the first 3 paragraphs.
Boy did you open a window, let me pull some phrases out of this so that we can see if they know what they are talking about.
Line 1: The evolution of sex is a major puzzle
Line2-3: since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test
Line 4:several explanations have been suggested by biologists
Line 6: It seems
Line 8-9: There are three possible reasons why this might happen.
Line 13: These classes of hypotheses are further broken down below.
Line 13-14: It is important to realise that any number of these hypotheses may be true in any given species
Line 14-15: However, a research framework has yet to be found. (lol!)
That was just in the summary, dare I scroll down the page and read one of the many explanations and see if their language is as similar as that. I really like the last sentence of the summary. "research framework has yet to be found." Wouldn't that statement pretty much nullify everything about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex
The only way for something to be a 'major puzzle' is to have all the pieces still jumbled. As soon as you solve a puzzle it becomes a picture.
|
On April 19 2007 21:21 yisun518 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:14 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 21:05 yisun518 wrote:On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption. you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning. mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments. let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this. Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt. So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts. Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students. the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic.evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies) please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture.
All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right.
Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
|
On April 19 2007 21:26 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:21 yisun518 wrote:On April 19 2007 21:14 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 21:05 yisun518 wrote:On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption. you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning. mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments. let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this. Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt. So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts. Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students. the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic.evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies) please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture. All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right. Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT"
this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinking
|
On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption.
Well, if anyone who does anything bad isn't really a Christian anymore, it's just fundamentally impossible for anyone who's done anything bad to be a Christian. You have to understand that for other people, your waving of the bible doesn't really seem any more or less justified than the bible waving people of the dark ages or the witch trials or the crusades or whatever.
And don't set yourself up for failure by claiming that nothing in the bible is contradictory.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
has a bunch, apparently. It's right from 10 seconds with google. This one seems pretty difficult to say isn't somehow wrong:
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
There's your one line, I guess.
|
On April 19 2007 21:30 bine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption. Well, if anyone who does anything bad isn't really a Christian anymore, it's just fundamentally impossible for anyone who's done anything bad to be a Christian. You have to understand that for other people, your waving of the bible doesn't really seem any more or less justified than the bible waving people of the dark ages or the witch trials or the crusades or whatever. And don't set yourself up for failure by claiming that nothing in the bible is contradictory. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.htmlhas a bunch, apparently. It's right from 10 seconds with google. This one seems pretty difficult to say isn't somehow wrong: KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. There's your one line, I guess.
That site was brought up already on SCD.com..
Don't think we're oblivious to all the contradiction sites.. trust me we got hundreds of them thrown at us there..
|
Can someone please explain the Big Bang thing to me, I really don't understand it. Like even less that I understand those people who do 9 pools every time I play them.
|
On April 19 2007 21:29 yisun518 wrote:
my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
As a law student, you completely butchered the main purpose of it. You said "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in the minority of cases. The main decision making of the Justice system is based off of a 'majority of the evidence.' I could care less about your point on knowledge which you keep trying to instigate a discussion on, I was correcting your erroneous interpretation of the Justice system.
Deductive thinking? Isn't it Deductive reasoning? Any who, you like to throw around the term 'illogical fallacy'. That is indeed another common sense term that I would hope everyone realizes. Human logic is flawed, since two humans can have different logic so the term 'illogical fallacy' is pretty much a waste. Not to mention that you took my statement far to literal, I was basically adding on to the fact that you butchered the Justice system and you were citing it as an example and as far as I'm concerned the only things you've actually said are COMMON SENSE, which I'd hope to God you couldn't get wrong.
|
On April 19 2007 21:30 bine wrote:And don't set yourself up for failure by claiming that nothing in the bible is contradictory. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.htmlhas a bunch, apparently. It's right from 10 seconds with google. This one seems pretty difficult to say isn't somehow wrong: KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. There's your one line, I guess.
Did you honestly just quote infidels.org? Omgosh hahaha...
Kings tells us about stalls for horses--horses only, while Chronicles tells us about (presumably different, and perhaps larger) stalls in which both horses and chariots were kept together.
Seriously, infidels.org is based entirely on some idiots inability to read, I wouldn't bring it up.
And there we go, a leg imitate answer to the contradiction.
NEXT
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On April 19 2007 19:37 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:58 testpat wrote:On April 19 2007 18:04 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 17:47 testpat wrote:On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more. Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases. Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable. For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B. On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote:
Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark? Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out. You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water. You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood. First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals. Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night. Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat. Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2? Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light. Wow, you are a dense person. An amazingly dense person. An amazingly dense person who hasn't even read the biblical passage, even though we've been discussing this for two days. They are on the ark for more than a few months, the ark has 3 levels, lighting is necessary. These are in your expertise - the bible. Other than Feed, clean poop, disperse animals, I'm missing where you've expanded on this well thought out plan for caring for the animals. Other than stating you believe in Evolution, cause there were no polar bears before the ark, I'm not sure what further data you've provided. For that matter, I don't see a post after my post that futher illuminates your thoughts an the myriad of problems i outlined. From the new information of where you pulled 58,000 from, I'm guessing invertebrates are made later by god pulling out the skeletons, since they aren't on the ark. I'm guessing insects must be imaginary - because they are all dead if they aren't on the ark. I'm guessing that your concept of animal hasn't really considered that all other life is wiped out - and therefore everything needs to be on the ark. That's why your 58,000 number is really just silly. Why is it that every additional postulate you make, and the support for it, makes your ark look less planned out? + Show Spoiler +
How long were they are on the ark?
Can't you read it yourself? See if you opened to the chapter of the Bible and read what it said, I wouldn't have to explain a thing.
So far you've told me only clean animals are on the ark, failed to understand the ark is in water for a year, failed to understand that the ark has 3 levels. Now you add that they are only on the ark for a few months. Noah's account is a few pages of the bible, how tough is it to read it? Finally, another well thought out article of how they repopulate "Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.." So your argument is "it sounds easier than evolution, it must be true. For you to make this argument means you believe in evolution correct? Otherwise its complete nonsense. Even if you do believe in evolution, your logic doesn't follow. Evolution is not the origin of life, its the changing characteristics of large populations over time. There is no evolutionary change in populations of zero. If you just mistook origin of life for evolution with your normal sloppy thinking. I would state that in the time periods involved < 10k years, the earth could not be populated with its current genetic diversity if the first signs of life occurred 10k years ago. I would further state that given a set of species, numbering 2 in each case, that the genetic diversity we see today would not be possible, in addition, most species would die out because of lack of diversity in the genes of the original population. Conservation biologists estimate a minimum size of fifty for a species's survival, with 150 or more being a more realistic figure. How about .... honey bees? you do realize that 2 bees cannot create a colony, certain plants can't pollinate without bees. Your useless. I've answered your ark questions 3 times now, and all you do is tell me to go reread it after you don't quote anything, don't respond with anything new. You just keep saying the same things over and over. I'm done responding to your questions until you think of some new ones.
You fail to understand that you haven't answered the questions with any sort of consistent explanation of how it happened. Eat Poop Disperse is not a valid description of the difficulties of the ark. In fact, other than Eat Poop Disperse, you have only said you answered the questions before - that's just one answer repeated. Unlike a multiple choice exam where you choose once, and never look back again if its right or wrong, this is an argument. I have stated that Eat Poop Disperse is not a valid argument in my eyes. If you cannot get any more detailed than that, i have to conclude that you cannot construct a rational argument for the mechanics of the ark. Let's try again: Fill in the details of what is necessary for the ark to sustain life during the voyage. Describe the animals onboard, their care, their maintainence, Describe how the ark was built, given the difficulties I've mentioned. Describe how fish survive in the ocean, describe how the earth is repopulated. Describe how plant life survives. Describe why life isn't found 1) spread across the earth (pre flood) and 2) centered around one point, expanding outward over time (post flood) in the fossil record. Describe how islands are populated. Describe why there is no geological record of the flood. If you cant expand past Eat Poop Disperse, i'm just going to start calling you that.
"If you just mistook origin of life for evolution with your normal sloppy thinking. I would state that in the time periods involved < 10k years, the earth could not be populated with its current genetic diversity if the first signs of life occurred 10k years ago."
This is the only thing worth responding to. If God created all the animals, how is 10,000 years not enough to achieve our diversity... Also I didn't mistake the origin of life for evolution, we are discussing parts of the Evolutionary Theory, and the origins of life are a major part of that.
Actually, we are not discussing Evolution, we are not discussing origin of life - we are discussing why Noah's animals do not survive after landing - and i'm using arguments based on transfer of traits among species. Why isn't origin of life needed?- we have live animals - two of each. Why is transfer of traits important? because animals DNA is combination of their parents - variety comes over time from animals mating with different animals that have different dna than them. This is the problem with the ark. After the ark lands, you do not have a wide enough sample of DNA to mix and match and create the genetic diversity that we see in DNA today.
I get the whole "God created the animals" at Genesis. If he can do that, he can make sure they have variations in their dna. But after that, the flood kills them all off, and we have a bunch of near clones going around. 1) All species show more variation than is possible if they sprung from a common parent 10,000 years ago. 2) For species with population sizes of less than 150, survival is unlikely - you can look up conservation biology for problems that occur in species with smaller numbers.
|
On April 19 2007 21:26 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:21 yisun518 wrote:On April 19 2007 21:14 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 21:05 yisun518 wrote:On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption. you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning. mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments. let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this. Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt. So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts. Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students. the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic.evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies) please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture. All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right. Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread.
my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge
your point: majority of evidence to support the case
these are in no way contradictory to each other.
you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it.
even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT"
this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinking
On April 19 2007 21:36 Annor[BbG] wrote:
As a law student, you completely butchered the main purpose of it. You said "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in the minority of cases. The main decision making of the Justice system is based off of a 'majority of the evidence.' I could care less about your point on knowledge which you keep trying to instigate a discussion on, I was correcting your erroneous interpretation of the Justice system.
you need to keep the word together, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not knowledge. cases are based on evidence as knowledge. and knowledge is.... + Show Spoiler +open up the nested quote and look at the underlined piece
and again, you have commited a logical phallacy, by taking only part of a COMPLETE definition out, to support your very own claim.
|
On April 19 2007 21:41 yisun518 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:26 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 21:21 yisun518 wrote:On April 19 2007 21:14 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 21:05 yisun518 wrote:On April 19 2007 21:00 XelNaga wrote:On April 19 2007 20:55 yisun518 wrote:
constructive arguments pro-religion or pro-omnigod is welcomed, but not i believe b/c it says so and u cant disprove me type of argument.
dark age, witch hunting, basically use the same type of reasoning as u do. if our justice system is based on such reasoning, our society will get into serious problem And you can't disprove even 1 line of a book thousands of years old Dark Age? Witch hunting? No, those aren't Christianity. That's people twisting what the bible says, sorry. Work off a different assumption. you are not getting my point. u believe in the bible b/c it says so (ur reasoning), someone can believe in ANYTHING b/c their group says so, which can be very destructive to our world. this is why there are ppl saying religions can be very negative, b/c most ppl who learn bibles lack the capability of logical reasoning. mind you, there are a lot of good constructive logical argument out there for religion (such as argument of design, which nonetheless has flaws), and also some very good ones against religions. but the insights your providing is not helping religion.. most arguments have flaws when put under certain thought experiments, and ppl try to improve and refine the argument to avoid flaws after thought experiments. let me remind you again of how our world work today, how our justice system work. you need to understand this. Knowledge is true justified belief beyond reasonable doubt.
There is NO WAY to disprove existence of God, or evolution for that matter. What matters is the evidence to support it beyond doubt. So after all these posts you dedicated to trying to prove Xel wrong, you came to the conclusion of you believe what you want I'll believe what I want. If that's the case, please stop wasting everyone's time with your countless pointless posts. Also the justice system doesn't necessarily work on 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although that is popular in your major cases, over 90% of our justice system goes on 'majority of the evidence'. Don't make up things off of Law and Order on TV, some people here might actually be law students. the bolded part is IN FACT the reasoning to avoid, as you have clearly misunderstood my logic.evidence is justice system is in fact about supporting evidence claimed as KNOWLEDGE. and our best definition of knowledge is in fact TRUE JUSTIFIED BELIEF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (why? b/c u can never be 100% sure of anything, hence beyond certain doubt, it may be true, but you could be saying it without justification, example: "i know Bob stole a book" when i did not see Bob stealing a book and nobody told me of so, but when he in fact did really steal a book, this is NOT knowledge, simply b/c i am not justified to believe so. And most importantly, u must believe it, otherwise its not knowledge) (and this is not off a TV shows. its off philosophical studies) please do not post things without a clear understanding of the reasonings, read everything i wrote again in the last 2 pages to grasp a better picture. All I was commenting on was the lack of your ability to use the Justice system correctly, if you can't even get the Justice system's process right, how can I expect you to get anything else even remotely right. Everything else you said is common sense, which is completely wasted on most of the people replying to this thread. my point: justice system is based on knowledge + what is knowledge your point: majority of evidence to support the case these are in no way contradictory to each other. you seriously need to think twice before you post please, it just seems like you are bashing others for the heck of it. even if i have commited an illogical argument, you are saying "you cant get one thing straight, therefore YOU CANNOT GET ANYTHING RIGHT"
this is a perfect example of inductive thinking, which in itself commits a fatal logical phallacy. plz only use proper deductive thinkingShow nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:36 Annor[BbG] wrote:
As a law student, you completely butchered the main purpose of it. You said "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in the minority of cases. The main decision making of the Justice system is based off of a 'majority of the evidence.' I could care less about your point on knowledge which you keep trying to instigate a discussion on, I was correcting your erroneous interpretation of the Justice system. you need to keep the word together, only "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not knowledge. cases are based on evidence as knowledge. and knowledge is....
Fine, if your going to leave the definition to my interpretation, I'll pick this one.
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one
Gee whiz, will you lack at that, that definition says knowledge is relative to the user. Maybe you should be more clear or concise. Go the extra mile, give a definition to make sure people know what you mean.
|
On April 19 2007 21:38 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 21:30 bine wrote:And don't set yourself up for failure by claiming that nothing in the bible is contradictory. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.htmlhas a bunch, apparently. It's right from 10 seconds with google. This one seems pretty difficult to say isn't somehow wrong: KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. There's your one line, I guess. Did you honestly just quote infidels.org? Omgosh hahaha... Kings tells us about stalls for horses--horses only, while Chronicles tells us about (presumably different, and perhaps larger) stalls in which both horses and chariots were kept together. Seriously, infidels.org is based entirely on some idiots inability to read, I wouldn't bring it up. And there we go, a leg imitate answer to the contradiction. NEXT
Dude you can't next the hot guy when you're the one on the bus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
