a scientific dissent from darwinism2 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism3 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism4 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
Does "modern" evolution have a different mechanism to account for life besides random mutation and natural selection? I'm not aware of one. This is usually the main argument from what I've seen.
The study of the origin of life is abiogenisis. As far as evolution goes, yes, it does. It's been observed. Check out, oh, I dunno, virii inserting themselves into your DNA, jumping genes....read a book? Survival of the Sickest is a good start.
"there is a story circulating around the net, started by a group called noahs ark ministries, which claims they have found noahs ark on mount ararat in turkey.. a group of chinese and turkish evangelical explorers say they have brought back wood specimens from atop mount ararat in turkey that they believe to be from noahs ark.
claiming they found a wood structure with compartments and samples that date carbon date to 4,800 years ago, they say it is 99% certain it is the ark of biblical fame.
http://thepostanything.gather.com/viewarticle.action?articleid=281474978201133&grpid=3659174697244816.
How do you determine what is true?
Why is that a trick? If so, it's no more clever than asking someone how they cook their eggs. If they say "fried" you would answer "but evidence proves they can also be boiled, so you are not correct!" It's about as clever as a tricking a 6 month old into thing you are not there during peek-a-boo.
If you believe that it is impossible for our planet to have been totally covered in water at one time (as you claimed), what is your evidence for that impossiblity?
Geological record. But let's be clear, I am saying no biblical flood occurred during the time that man has existed. There COULD have been a time, billions of years ago, prior to the rise of the continents, but there is no proof one way or another that this was the case.
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
oh, PP ran away when he realized he weren't so bright. Dang.
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
Sorry, there is no middle ground with logic.
False/True
On/Off
etc.
Otherwise, how would we know anything.
I'm not convinced you guys have thought this through.
That just means all you understand is binary logic as used by extremely simple circuits. You didn't think it through, not because you aren't trying, but because you don't know a lot of things. You don't know what you don't know.
So, on = yes = 1, of = no = 0. Did you stop beating your wife yet?
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
So you're actually saying that the laws of science are made of matter? Or you're suggesting that it's my responsibility to prove that they are? That's bizarre. Good luck with it!
I did not say that. I am trying to ascertain what you are saying since you started this thread. You seem to be saying they can't exist because everything that exists is made of matter and the "laws of science" aren't matter. I am asking you to prove that since that seems to be what you are saying.
When was it proven that I'd even beaten her? Again with the loaded questions? Seriously, guys, hanging around this forum is making you flaccid and lazy in your arguments.
That's an example of the question that creates a false dichotomy, the same as your question, assuming a premise that restricts the answer to one of two false answer.
I'll take it as a no that you haven't stopped beating her.
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
Either answer the questions or don't, it's up to you. You're jumping through hoops to avoid the issue;
Pick a side.
Why in the world would I pick an answer in a false dichotomy? BTW, did you stop being beating your wife yet?
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
So the laws of science don't change and they're also not made of matter.
How do you know they aren't made of matter? Do you know what matter is? How about spacetime? Gravity? What is it made of? Since you are stating it as fact, you must know it to be true and can prove it. Please do so.
Yet I'm guessing you believe that all that exists is ever-changing matter (i.e constantly evolving things). Doesn't the fact that the laws of science are immaterial and unchanging contradict your worldview? And doesn't that contradiction (remember the law of the excluded middle) mean your worldview is false?
So, you guess at what I beleive, then you misunderstand the "laws" of science and how it works and then prove that what you guessed I believed based on your misunderstanding of science is wrong?
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
No I'm not. Read what I'm actually asking.
I did, and you are. You are asking an "or" question where one doesn't exist.
Dan Barker, in a debate with Dr. James White, attempted to refute this argument by saying that “logic is not a thing.” Well if by thinghe means a physical object then I would agree with him. The problem is that he already said that thingsare all that exist. So according to Dan Barker there is no logic.
Therefore, either all that exists is matter, constantly changing, or it isn't. A natural materialist has to borrow from someone else's worldview in order to prove what they believe. This contradicts their worldview and as a result makes it false.
So? One guy says something and you jump through hoops and say all atheists beleive something and propose an "or" question based on it. What one guy says in a debate is somewhat irrelevant to the world at large and how it works.
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
How does science know this if all that exists is matter?
Matter in it's various forms and interactions, much the same way you know whether your hand is on fire or not, I would suppose.
atheists are, by definition, naturalistic materialists; i.e.
they believe that only the physical universe exists, only the nature exists therefore there is no supernatural and certainly no god.. can you, therefore, be an atheist but believe in logic and maths?
they're also not made of matter.. is it true to say, then, that the atheist worldview is contradictory?
In those instances, are the numbers consistently irrational? You see, how would understanding anything work without there being constant and unchanging laws?
Good question!
Gravity was thought to understood once Issac Newton figured out how it worked. But then...measurements from things no on earth (like the orbit of Mercury around the Sun) didn't work using the math that worked on earth. This was a mystery for many years until a bright fellow named Albert figured out that gravity isn't so much a force as a bending of space caused by massive objects. His new ideas perfectly matched up with the observations.
So, did gravity change? no, but the way we humans understood it did once we had more information to figure it out. Our local measurements and experiments worked fine (and we still use the "old" math for calculations that are purely local in nature since they work).
Next question?
