The Main Question (mythology, religions, divine, ancient)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by 303Guy Let's entertain the idea that the universe is alive. What makes you believe so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
Everything.
Common sense.
Logic.
Science.
Evidence.
Intuition.
Knowing.
Religion.
Mysticism.
Spirituality.
Science, science, science.
Those are merely claims without validation of your beliefs. Let's have the science to start with. You can keep the religion, mysticism. spirituality, and the other faith -based wishful guesswork that is claimed as "Knowing" through "Intuition".
And to save you wasted effort, trying to debunk disbelief will get you nowhere. Even if you could refute every single one of the atheist -materialist views, that would not do a thing to validate yours. The common theist mindset that God is real until totally disproven leads them to think that you only have to reject the scientific alternatives and it leaves the God -theory in place. Logically it does not. That is logic, and I have never heard a sound logical rationale for a god. That you appeal to 'common sense' (a very unreliable way of thinking) shows that your "Logic" is probably also unsound.
No, I did. You said 'intelligence' as I recall. I felt that might be debatable as to how much intelligence a bacteria has, so I took what at least made your suggestion less that ridiculous. But if you meant anything else, please explain.
Yes, true. Mutation is through random strikes of cosmic particles. so the theory goes. The changes are unplanned - random, you might say. But, from then on it isn't random It is driven or selected by environmental conditions. It is a known mechanism and process. That is not random. So your point that present complexity is impossible through random chance fails.
I already explained why natural selection and genetic mutation and the long process of change over time is the best explanation. If you have a better one, let's have it.
Yes, so the theory goes. There is no evidence for it. Maybe it's a "known mechanism" but it still doesn't have any evidence.
So, if we don't have a BETTER theory than the old STUPID theory, we must agree with the old STUPID theory? Until we can make up a better one?
Sometimes the answer is I DON'T KNOW. That's something people like you are not able to ever admit.
Originally Posted by 303Guy Let's entertain the idea that the universe is alive. What makes you believe so?
Those are merely claims without validation of your beliefs. Let's have the science to start with. You can keep the religion, mysticism. spirituality, and the other faith -based wishful guesswork that is claimed as "Knowing" through "Intuition".
And to save you wasted effort, trying to debunk disbelief will get you nowhere. Even if you could refute every single one of the atheist -materialist views, that would not do a thing to validate yours. The common theist mindset that God is real until totally disproven leads them to think that you only have to reject the scientific alternatives and it leaves the God -theory in place. Logically it does not. That is logic, and I have never heard a sound logical rationale for a god. That you appeal to 'common sense' (a very unreliable way of thinking) shows that your "Logic" is probably also unsound.
I know you don't care about common sense, intuition, mysticism or spirituality. I know you think all of those are garbage.
But you conveniently ignored that I also said EVIDENCE, LOGIC and SCIENCE.
Yes, so the theory goes. There is no evidence for it. Maybe it's a "known mechanism" but it still doesn't have any evidence.
So, if we don't have a BETTER theory than the old STUPID theory, we must agree with the old STUPID theory? Until we can make up a better one?
Sometimes the answer is I DON'T KNOW. That's something people like you are not able to ever admit.
The known mechanism IS the evidence. And, yes - that is the way Logic and science works, unless you have you own brand of logic and science. The explanation that best accords with the evidence is the one to be preferred.
"I don't know" is indeed a vey good answer where one doesn't (1). There is a lot about the process of evolution that we still don't know, but not as much as it used to be.
For a long time the argument about feathered dinosaurs went on, and I had some doubts about how the feather could have evolved so perfectly adapted for flight before the animal knew it needed to fly.
Well, fossils showing the stages of evolution of a non -flight feather (originally for display as indeed it still is in peacocks) answered the basic questions and 'We know' is really the better option over "we don't know".
There comes a stage where 'We don't know" from the Creationist side really becomes "We don't want to know".
It is a very familiar process of appealing to not ever being 100% sure, the claim that science is always changing its' mind (never that much - not since Copernicus) and of course, Knowing it is all a lie on Faith and coming with odd conspiracy theories about atheists having a grip on the global scientific community and also it seems worldwide Big Business since atheism (so the conspiracy theory goes) holds all the purse -strings too. I'm constantly astonished by just how much global clout atheism has.
Now it's your turn.
Let's have your alternative to Evilooshun, backed up with logic, evidence and science, science, science.
(1) We use it quite a lot in First cause debate. Odd then that the theist side seem to consider that an invalid answer.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-09-2017 at 10:55 AM..
The known mechanism IS the evidence. And, yes - that is the way Logic and science works, unless you have you own brand of logic and science.
The explanation that best accords with the evidence is the one to be preferred.
"I don't know" is indeed a vey good answer where one doesn't (1). There is a lot about the process of evolution that we still don't know, but not as much as it used to be.
For a long time the argument about feathered dinosaurs went on, and I had some doubts about how the feather could have evolved so perfectly adapted for flight before the animal knew it needed to fly.
Well, fossils showing the stages of evolution of a non -flight feather (originally for display as indeed is still is in peacocks) answerd the basic questions and 'We know' is really the better option over "we don't know".
There comes a stage where 'We don't know" from the Creationist side really becomes "We don't want to know".
It is a very familiar process of appealing to not ever being 100% sure, the claim that science is always changing its' mind (never that much - not since Copernicus) and of course, Knowing it is all a lie of faith and comning with odd conspiracy theories about atheists having a grip on the scientific community and also it seems Big Business since atheism (so the conspiracy theory goes) holds all the purse -strings too. I'm constantly astonished by just how much global clout atheism has.
Now it's your turn.
Let's have your alternative to Evilooshun, backed up with logic, evidence and science, science, science.
(1) We use it quite a lot in First cause debate. Odd then that the theist side seem to consider that an invalid answer.
I believe in evolution. Evolution is true. How many times do I have to repeat that????
I believe in evolution. Evolution is true. How many times do I have to repeat that????
I believe in evolution. Evolution is true. How many times do I have to repeat that????
Then kindly explain what we are arguing about (Red is still reserved for Mods. You have one more strike ), label it whatever yoy wish, and then pleasr provide you science and logic -based alternative to it.
Then kindly explain what we are arguing about (Red is still reserved for Mods. You have one more strike ), label it whatever yoy wish, and then pleasr provide you science and logic -based alternative to it.
I luv it here.
That is not red, it is orange. Another strike for you.
What are we arguing about? I wrote the post, I clarified with many comments. If you don't know yet, I give up on you.
Ok .I am missing something here.
You list evidence. Let's go with that. What is the evidence?
Perhaps you might explain your definition of life?
The complete lack of evidence for the evolution mainly by natural selection theory should count against it.
It is KNOWN that cells purposefully modify their DNA. So WHY does anyone still insist that DNA mutations are always accidents???
It is KNOWN that epigenetic changes can be inherited. So WHY does anyone still insist that ONLY accidental mutations acted on by natural selection can result in inherited changes?
We do NOT know the extent of Natural Genetic Engineering. And we do not know to what extent naturally engineered changes contribute to evolution.
A whole lot is still unknown. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to keep on insisting forever that evolution has been explained.
I know you don't care about common sense, intuition, mysticism or spirituality. I know you think all of those are garbage.
But you conveniently ignored that I also said EVIDENCE, LOGIC and SCIENCE.
You used the words EVIDENCE, LOGIC and SCIENCE but you didnt provide any evidence, logic or science to support your claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), label it whatever yoy wish, and then pleasr provide you science and logic -based alternative to it.
