i've been awake now for a good while.
about a year.
in that year i've done a lot of soul searching and thinking about god and religion etc.... as i'm sure most all of us have who've left this cult.
"Does anyone have any suggestions on how we can be more content with the present?" - All or nothing
Socialise as much as you can. You will come into contact with a lot of ideas as well as learn about interests and this will broaden your personal horizons giving you a base from which to plan your own life. In other words you may well find yourself by engaging with others and drawing on their life experiences.
sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.
charlatanism of the highest order.
.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.
Just for clarity, why is post modernism (of any flavour) relevant in discussions about the natural sciences?
Also, will you really not affirm that the earth is not flat?
Thanks
in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
"DNA is a code of information passed down from parent to child. Its predictable and generally stable. This is exactly what we would expect to observe if we assume INTELLIGENCE behind creation. Again, the evidence of nature always shows us that Information begets information, consistent with the assumptions of creationism" - Saved_JW
Can you define information in this context please?
With regards the bold section of quote: Explain why you would expect this. Have you spoken to the intelligent designer and found this to be true? I am guessing not which begs the question as to how you would know what a designer would want to do.
"Evidence does not speak for itself, we all have bias and we all interpret evidence through the filters of our assumptions." - Saved_JW
This is a common creationist uttering and is designed to suggest that scientists simply interpret evidence one way of many possible ways, therefore creationist views are as valid as any other. However the reality is that scientists consider evidence in context, that context being how that evidence ties in with all the other evidence science as a whole as discovered so far. Creationists like to pick and choose what "evidence" to use to support their conclusions whereas in science a conclusion has to account for ALL current knowledge... Just look at all the creationist postings over the recent threads concerning evolution and you will see that all creation assertions or anti-evolution assertions have been from cherry picked data that was easily refuted by pointing out that very fact and supplying that person with all the information (or as much as was needed to point out the errors; see the post above for a classic example of how to deal with creationist reasoning...).
for additional information:.
for additional information:.
for additional information:.
How old would you say the Earth is? Perhaps if you supplied us with that information we could have a starting point for an interesting exchange of information.
for additional information:.
for additional information:.
for additional information:.
Perry -
Two of your most recent links for examples of "Dino tissue" in fossils are not saying what you are asserting they are. One of the links is an article from New Scientist that discusses a species of bee that has been preserved in amber (not a fossil, or a dinosaur) and the other 1 from physics.org discusses how soft tissue is sometimes fossilised in a way that preserves the original aspect of muscles etc (it is fossilised, not tissue...). What about the rest of your links?
Do you ever bother to read these links you are providing us with? If you did you might just think twice before linking us to sites that show what you are saying is wrong...
in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
A point about entropy. Entropy, in a simplistic term, is a measure of how distributed energy is in a specified environment/system; an increase in entropy means a more distributed and less effective energy supply. In the context of this thread we can assume the system to be the universe. With no outside influence the energy in the universe will tend towards the less organised state which means it spreads out and dissipates; entropy increases.
That, however, describes the universe as a whole and does not mean that it will spread out equally everywhere. Instead there will be localised areas where entropy decreases, our Solar System being one of them. The Sun gives out its energy which our planet receives and that decreases the entropy on Earth i.e. the energy we receive from the Sun is feeding the Earth and it's systems.
The Universe is a closed system, the Solar System is an open system. Overall, entropy increases in the Universe but decreases (at the moment) in the Solar System.
I said it was a simplistic explanation...
for additional information:.
for additional information:.
for additional information:.
Again, the hassle of dealing with claims made by someone who has not bothered to actually learn about the subject they are commenting on... Perry, virtually every post you make only proves you know so little about the subjects you talk about that you actually think what you post is correct and relevant to the discussion! Either that or you are a troll; it is truly hard to decide which you are.
in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
"Whence evil? Now, I've got another one: Why evil?" - snowbird
Evil is subjective. It is just how an individual sees a situation. It's nothing more than a descriptive observation that is born of an evolved mind. It is not a question that needs answering in this topic's context...
in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
"I believe God created ..." - snowbird
You can believe what you want about anything. It's when you start asserting these beliefs as reality against all rational evidence that you will find people objecting....
"But, you will never accept that, will you?" - snowbird
Of course I accept that you believe that. You seem to have ran off down a side alley instead of addressing the points I was making about how it is illogical to insist life is designed....
in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.
predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.
entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.
"???" - snowbird
If you wish to assert something like the cell is designed, rather than the product of non-guided process you either have to bring the designer forwards to explain how it was all done (or to simply say "yeah it was me, good eh?") or demonstrate that there is no natural process that could bring it about.
For the latter you would have to know everything so as to not overlook a potential natural process. You can't just say "I can't think of an explanation therefore..." or "I can't see how it could have happened naturally..." because that is nothing more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity and as such is logically flawed.
