Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Yet another icon of evolution falls.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Yet another icon of evolution falls.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 43, 44, 45 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:07 am Post subject:

brento1138 wrote:

unless you think that only minor adaptive change is all creatures need.

You got it at last.

Quote:

Especially since over 99% of all species which have ever existed are now extinct!

Evidence. Link please. I'm intrigued as to how you've arrived at this figure.

Quote:

Saying something "may be possible" is not akin to accepting it.

Clearly you will have to read the book before you decide to contest what he is saying.
My understanding of the reviews is that he has definitive proof that organisms do in fact genetically engineer themselves.

Quote:

Anyways, this doesn't seem to be the case, since so many mutations are either neutral or harmful. Most mutations seem very random, as only a small handful ever turn out to be beneficial.

Indeed. The overwhelmingly vast majority.
So many in fact that it is unviable to base a theory of evolution on random mutation. It can't possibly be the mechanism required for massive morphological change.

Quote:

If the creatures are, as you say, intelligently designing themselves, then they are not doing it very *ahem* intelligently... are they?

Duh. You don't get it. There are various different types of mutations. Not all mutations are the same!
I suggest you go and read up on genetics 101 because it is painful to constantly have to educate you on the matter.

Quote:

He loses when he says the word "irreducibly" especially since he wrote the book, scientists have already reduced many of his supposedly "irreducibly complex" items down to the last atom.

Actually they haven't at all.
Unless you count inadequate, simplistic and implausible childish berations as explanations.

Quote:

The term "irreducibly complex" is just another way of saying [i]"we will never understand it, so let's give up."

On the other hand there are the likes of yourself, who exhibit an extreme determination to find any explanation but God. (No matter how flawed or ridiculous).

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:47 am Post subject:

UknowsI

Joined: 16 Apr 2009

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:10 am Post subject:

I will only nitpick on a few comments about science since I have no intent of reading 43 pages of this.

Junior wrote:

If he had definite proof, you would be able to refer me to a publication in Nature and not to a book he has written.

Junior wrote:

So ...it seems evolutionists are now plagiarising creation scientists to find stuff worth publishing.

Science is to religion like western medicine is to alternative medicine. As soon as it follows scientific criteria it become science regardless of who came up with it just like a medicine is no longer considered alternative medicine after its effect has been proven.

When it comes to the actual content, I don't really have much to add as I can't find any reasonable argument for creationism except for pointing out flaws in science, which most scientists are aware of already.

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:11 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

brento1138 wrote:

unless you think that only minor adaptive change is all creatures need.

You got it at last.

What I don't get is why you think this is all creatures would get from their omnipotent creator? I mean, couldn't the creator have done a bit better? Be more imaginative? I mean, humans can already insert genes from a different species into a completely different creature (jellyfish genes into mice, for example). Are you telling me humans are more capable than their own creator?

You still haven't told me where genetic information is mentioned in the Bible. Guess it wasn't mentioned after all, huh.

Junior wrote:

Evidence. Link please. I'm intrigued as to how you've arrived at this figure.

The 99 percent figure is pretty well known. Surprised you haven't heard of it, but here's some links:

American Museum of Natural History: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs/extinction/mass.php

Center for Biological Diversity: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Junior wrote:

brento1138 wrote:

He loses when he says the word "irreducibly" especially since he wrote the book, scientists have already reduced many of his supposedly "irreducibly complex" items down to the last atom.

Actually they haven't at all.
Unless you count inadequate, simplistic and implausible childish berations as explanations.

No, really, they have. Why don't you see for yourself. There are a few examples, but the one which stands out the most is the flagellum, a supposedly irreducibly complex part of the bacteria which turned out to be reducible after technology got a bit better. There are quite a few examples.

I thought I posted some of these before, but alas, here they are:

The Flagellum Unspun: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Video on the flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

IC debunked) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As1HlmYeh7Q

IC cut down to size) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU

Behe gets schooled) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBpW-m8soMY

You see, as time goes on, technology improves, and more tools become available to us, science gets better. It answers the things we didn't know before, previously. This is why just saying "Oh, it's too complex" or "God did it" is just a cop out. The ancient Greeks said the wind was the "breath of the gods." Now we have a much better explanation.

Junior wrote:

On the other hand there are the likes of yourself, who exhibit an extreme determination to find any explanation but God. (No matter how flawed or ridiculous).

Well, no offense intended here, but historically speaking, it just seems like every time people try to explain things by invoking the supernatural (since they didn't have the tools available to them at the time to do the research), another natural explanation which can be verified by science is later found. Take these examples:

Now we know that disease is not caused by demons, but by viruses, bacteria, cancer, etc.
Now we know that the sun is not a sky god.
Now we know that gods do not blow the wind.
Now we know that Earth is not the center of the solar system.
Now we know that lightning and thunder is not caused by Zeus.

There's a pattern here, Junior. Humans once thought all creatures and the Earth were magically created in their current forms. Well... that's not what we observe through science. It's nice to think so, but perhaps we can come to a nice middle-ground. Many already have:

OK, maybe the viruses are the demons.
OK, maybe the sun is still a sky god, but also a big ball of hot plasma.
OK, maybe there is pressure, but the pressure is the god breath.
OK, maybe Earth still is the center of the solar system, philosophically, not literally.
OK, maybe lightning and thunder are caused by atmospheric electrostatic discharges, but Zeus is behind the atmospheric electrostatic discharges.

Further, why don't you bridge the gaps with evolution?

OK, maybe God created man, but used an evolutionary process to create man.
OK, God did give animals the ability to adapt... which happened to include additional information in genetic mutations.
OK, maybe the 7 days in the Old Testament do not refer to literally 7 days, but maybe 7 stages?
OK, maybe the flood of Noah wasn't the entire world per se, but Noah's "entire" world which consisted of a large delta which got covered in water...
OK, maybe the flagellum was slowly built and guided by the hand of God...

Two books I really recommend to you, Junior, are Michael Shermer's book The Believing Brain or Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World. They touch briefly on evolution but more importantly they teach how to think skeptically, critically, and critique the use of the supernatural to explain away complex or strange things.

Also, you don't have to lose your faith. You just need to have an open-mind. Remember that it is possible (as many have already demonstrated, ie. Catholic Church) that one an be religious, believe in the supernatural, remain superstitious, yet accept science too. It might sound impossible, even illogical; but hey, I'm sure you won't have any problems with those two small details!

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:27 am Post subject:

Brento wrote:

You still haven't told me where genetic information is mentioned in the Bible. Guess it wasn't mentioned after all, huh.

Just because the bible doesn't say the word "deoxyribonucleicacid" does not mean that creatures thousands of years ago existed without genetic information. This question is so profoundly silly I 'm wondering why I even wasted my time replying.

Quote:

The 99 percent figure is pretty well known. Surprised you haven't heard of it, but here's some links:

Those links either parrot the 99% figure or say 50%. Which is it?
And none of your links give the source and justification for those imaginary figures.

We know that there are about 9 million species on earth today.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_1.htm
So you're trying to tell me that scientists have documented 891 million different fossils of extinct species?

I don't think so.

Quote:

No, really, they have. Why don't you see for yourself. There are a few examples, but the one which stands out the most is the flagellum

not at all.

Your simplistic handwaving indicates your strong desire to be rid of irreducible complexity.. but it doesn't defeat the fact.

Evolutists have gotten away with overriding facts with bluster and ridicule for so long that they think they can get away with it indefinitely.

have a read.
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

Here are some other responses to other criticisms of irreducibility.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

If you were honest you'd simply state that "I want to believe in evolution no matter the evidence says.. because it suits my lifestyle, my atheism and the person I want to be".

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:33 am Post subject:

Junior, I am asking out of genuine curiosity: why do you insist that all Evolutionists support eugenics? It takes only one white crow to prove that all crows aren't black, and you have Evolutionists right here who don't support eugenics. So how can you still maintain that all Evolutionists support eugenics? Are we lying to you? Are we failing to understand Evolutionary theory? Or what?

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 1:49 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

Evolution theory states that morality is fluid and changes over time, depending on circumstances and cultures.

I wrote:

How does Evolutionary theory state that?

Junior wrote:

It states that morality developed and continues to develop by evolutionary processes.
So obviously of course it changes, and has changed, historically.
Morality is relative to its evolutionary stage of development and also relative to its ability to preserve the species. So of course evolutionism denies any fixed moral code.

Since Old Testament times, our species has been susceptible to venereal disease.
That's not expected to change any time soon.
Since Old Testament times, our species has had the longest childhood of any animal species on earth.
That's not expected to change any time soon.

Those are two reasons why our species practices monogamy and frowns upon philanderers, and that's not expected to change any time soon.

If you know of any evolutionary changes since Old Testament times which have affected our moral code, I would like to hear about it.
No, wait--I forgot--you don't believe in evolutionary changes!

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:12 am Post subject:

pucciniphile wrote:

Since Old Testament times, our species has had the longest childhood of any animal species on earth.
That's not expected to change any time soon.

Those are two reasons why our species practices monogamy and frowns upon philanderers, and that's not expected to change any time soon.

Of course. Because nothing has changed. Evolution didn't ocurr.

Thanks again for your support.

Quote:

why do you insist that all Evolutionists support eugenics?

I never said that.
However, if they don't...then they are contradicting the logical conclusions of their theory.
Probably because most people have no clue what evolution really entails, they just blindly follow it because everyone else does.
Humans are a gregarious herd animal, with powerful sociological forces making them follow the herd. Isolation is dangerous and unfashionable. As you know.

Quote:

Are we failing to understand Evolutionary theory? Or what?

Sure, most people haven't the foggiest about what it entails.

What evolution does claim however is that there is no God.

If that is indeed the case, then the following is also true:

a) Humans have no right to life. It simply depends on how succesfully they compete.
b) Sympathy and care for the less fit (disabled, criminals, homeless, unintelligent etc) at the expense of the fit is detrimental to the advancement of the human species. A waste of resources.
c) Humans are just another animal that arose naturalistically..thus they posess no spirit and their lives are unimportant.
d) Humans are not made in the image of God, therefore human life is not sacrosanct.
e) Without an absolute moral authority (our creator) and his moral laws, then human "morality" is entirely subjective and changing depending on circumstances, cultures and environments. Thus you could say there is no "good" nor "bad", essentially.

There's no point in doing what Brento does which is believe in all the nihilistic evolutionist claptrap then turn around and claim he still believes in biblical morality although he can't explain why. its just doesn't add up I'm afraid.

catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:36 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

[What evolution does claim however is that there is no God.

No it does not. There are many many examples of theists who believe in God and evolution.

Quote:

There's no point in doing what Brento does which is believe in all the nihilistic evolutionist claptrap then turn around and claim he still believes in biblical morality although he can't explain why. its just doesn't add up I'm afraid.

Did he say that he believes in biblical morality?

brento1138

Joined: 17 Nov 2004

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:39 am Post subject:

Junior wrote:

My question was not really silly. What is silly is your claim:

Junior wrote:

The biblical account predicts a gradual degeneration of living things and loss of genetic material since the fall of creation.

Just as Harold Camping wrongly interpreted the end of the world on October 21st, you are wrongly interpreting the Bible to have mentioned genetic material. People seem to mess up quite a bit on interpreting this book!

What I find silly is this:

A) That you are basing scientific reality on an ancient book of myths written by a tribe which pretty much had/has nothing to do with you, or your religion (other than their book being assimilated by your religion), and which vehemently disagrees with you on your most fundamental belief (that Jesus is God/son of God/Messiah/etc.). It makes very little sense that you base so much of your reality on a book written by a religion (the Jewish religion) which doesn't even believe in your own religion's claims whatsoever. In other words, the people whose book you are reading, and who you base your science denialism on, totally disagree with you on your most fundamental religious beliefs!
B) You are interpreting their stories way off from what the original writers intended to do with them. I highly doubt that Jewish writers knew or cared anything about genetic information. Yet you base your denial of science on it.
C) No matter what evidence I, nor anyone presents you with, which clearly show how information can be increased in an organism, you flat out deny it based on your automatic assumption that your book trumps all truth unquestionably.

Junior wrote:

Those links either parrot the 99% figure or say 50%. Which is it?
And none of your links give the source and justification for those imaginary figures.

No, actually the figure rose from 99% to 99.1-99.9%. The figure of 50% would be referring to the percentage of species lost in a single mass extinction (there were multiple mass extinctions).

Actually, the 99% figure relates to all documented species, not all species.

Here's more information related to the particular extinction events:

Wikipedia wrote:

1. Cretaceous�Tertiary extinction event (End Cretaceous or K-T extinction) � 65.5 Ma at the Cretaceous.Maastrichtian-Paleogene.Danian transition interval. The K�T event is now called the Cretaceous�Paleogene (or K�Pg) extinction event by many researchers. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera and 75% of species became extinct. In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. The majority of non-avian dinosaurs became extinct during that time. The boundary event was severe with a significant amount of variability in the rate of extinction between and among different clades. Mammals and birds emerged as dominant land vertebrates in the age of new life.
2. Triassic�Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic) � 205 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families and 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) went extinct. Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).
3. Permian�Triassic extinction event (End Permian) � 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families and 83% of all genera (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species) including insects. The evidence of plants is less clear, but new taxa became dominant after the extinction. The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years, but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".
4. Late Devonian extinction � 360�375 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera and 70% of all species. This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 MY, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
5. Ordovician�Silurian extinction event (End Ordovician or O-S) � 440�450 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families and 57% of all genera. Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.

I'm curious Junior. Do you accept the above information in its entirety? Or is there something there which you deny? If so, why? For example, I wonder if you accept the age of the Earth or the breakdown of the Earth's ages into Triassic, Jurassic, etc. Do you think different dinosaurs lived during each age, or that they are found in different strata due to a coincidence, or a giant flood, and that certain ones floated more than others? Or is there some kind of science conspiracy to make it look as if dinosaurs of different kinds were found in different strata? Do you not accept the fact that after each extinction, only a small handful of dinosaurs were left, and then started evolving and engaging in "arms race" evolution (which has been clearly documented, just watch BBC's new series Planet Dinosaur) in a predator vs. prey relationships?

More on the arms race, where predator-prey relationships are concerned:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIF1Armsrace.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race

The BBC Planet Dinosaur presents the science in an easy-to-digest way:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00kpcsl

Download here: http://eztv.it/ep/30442/bbc-planet-dinosaur-3of6-last-killers-x264-aac-hdtv-mvgroup/

Junior wrote:

Your simplistic handwaving indicates your strong desire to be rid of irreducible complexity.. but it doesn't defeat the fact.

Evolutists have gotten away with overriding facts with bluster and ridicule for so long that they think they can get away with it indefinitely.

have a read.
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

Here are some other responses to other criticisms of irreducibility.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3408

Your sources are from religiously biased websites, Junior. Flashy, nice looking, well-funded sites at that. But flash doesn't trump science.

There's no primary sources, peer reviewed articles, or actual research being done, just blog-writers or commentators commenting on why they cannot accept the facts. All I see there are people who deny good science. Anyone is entitled to their opinion, so the saying goes, but their opinions are fringe opinions. And they become more fringe by the day...

People who believe in irreducible complexity are really in the same boat as the 9-11 truthers, Obama birth certificate denialists, global warming deniers, Moon-landing hoax-believers. No matter how much the science, the experts, the latest research, impossibility of vast conspiracies, etc shows otherwise, I suppose there will always be those who get to their conclusion first then look for evidence to support it. What science does is looks at stuff and comes to conclusions from it. That's all evolution has ever done. That's not what creationism or intelligent design does.

Creationism has an agenda, and uses anything it can to get to that agenda. Intelligent design says "this stuff is too complex for us to understand, it's too difficult, let's jump ship and give up." Nope, that just aint science.

Junior wrote:

If you were honest you'd simply state that "I want to believe in evolution no matter the evidence says.. because it suits my lifestyle, my atheism and the person I want to be".

Are you trying to correlate atheism to evolution again? I guess my Catholic friends are all atheists then, according to your black-and-white worldview.

As for belief, atheists simply lack belief in a deity. It's not a belief, it's a lack of belief, which allows us an unimpaired judgment when it comes to scientific matters that might conflict with a certain religion (or, rather, a group of believers in that particular religion). We do not, by default, believe in a book written by another religion which we have assimilated into our religion and whose religion disagrees with our religion's fundamental beliefs; also, we do not have that confused 'by-default-we-are-right-everyone-else-is-wrong-no-matter-what' thing getting in the way. We would gladly accept any scientific evidence that provided a better explanation than the current ones do. So far, nothing has. Intelligent design and creation theory have failed every step of the way.

If only I could put a number on the vast amount of American atheists that I've met, and who all have the same story, as I've heard countless times. This is pretty much what they all say: "I would have stayed with my religion if they didn't lie to me. I would have kept the faith, the core beliefs. But since I was required to practically lobotomize myself, I decided to leave my church. I don't want to dumb myself down. Then I saw all the flaws in the belief system, and just decided it's time to leave, and disbelieve." This is the story I keep hearing from atheists, mainly from Canada and America.

Junior, you are shooting yourself, and your religion, in the foot by doing this sort of thing. The science is only getting better, and our knowledge base keeps growing. The leaps of insanity and denialism are only going to get larger and larger. You won't notice the gap growing, but others will. It's like a person who slowly, but surely, gains 100kg. They may not notice the small changes much over time, but someone who hasn't seen them in years will look at them and say "Whoah! You've gained some weight! YIKES." People who look at your religion will see your religion as less and less reasonable by the year. Less and less approachable. More and more crazy. More and more fringe. More Camping, more Davidian, more Peter Popoff, less Jesus-is-cool, less faith-is-neato, less goodness-is-the-way.

Harold Camping would be proud of your efforts at interpreting the Bible. I wonder how many people lost their faith because of him? I also wonder how many will lose their faith when they begin to realize that creationists are just spreading disinformation and lies? You can't deny that (so many examples, Kent Hovind stands out).

Kent Hovind's lies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LaUtupx6uY
300 creationist lies: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og/cindex/creationist_lies.html

Anyways, I fear your religion will fail to attract many smart/educated individuals (new recruits). It might become an inbred sort of thing, as not many people are willing to make such a leap into Crazy Land in denying evolution in order to 'fit into' your particular religion. For example, if I were to decide to start believing in a religion (who knows, maybe I'll pick one up someday), it certainly wouldn't be your interpretation of it. To me, that would be the equivalence of getting a lobotomy.

Why not just accept science on one side of the brain, and believe in your religion on the other side. Our brains are split into two, right? Shouldn't be too hard. Seems illogical and impossible? Well, like I said before, you are already very familiar with those two concepts, so you'll do just fine!

Junior wrote:

I don't believe in biblical morality, nor did I ever claim to.

Again, this is just more evidence of your black-and-white, over-simplified, intellectually-void worldview.

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:51 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

[Shapiro supports YEC, creationists have been touting his theory for years/yaddayadda]

I suggest you read this:

http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html

in which Shapiro criticizes both sides of the debate equally. I suspect Shapiro would be less than thrilled about your claim that he supports your side.

Junior wrote:

......I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that, bobby boy.

You mean like in the nine-tenths of the post you're responding to - where I ask you for evidence that you've repeatedly failed to produce - that you omitted?

Seriously now: You're ignoring requests for evidence that you insist I'll ignore and telling me to do better?!

Underwaterbob

Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:04 pm Post subject:

brento1138 wrote:

Now we know that Earth is not the center of the solar system.

Junior spent half the last thread trying to prove otherwise. Dredging up theoretical physics about relativistic mechanics or something that show it's possible. Of course when those same theories disagree with his supposed age of the universe, then they're bunk. Laughing

geldedgoat

Joined: 05 Mar 2009

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:42 pm Post subject:

brento1138 wrote:

As for belief, atheists simply lack belief in a deity. It's not a belief, it's a lack of belief [...]

What difference is there, then, between atheism and agnosticism?

whanous

Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:25 pm Post subject:

geldedgoat wrote:

What difference is there, then, between atheism and agnosticism?

I�ve included some definitions from Wikipedia. Not the best source around Wink

but it does the trick.

Someone can be both an atheist and agnostic. For instance:
�I hold the view that the existence of a deity is unknowable. I see no evidence; therefore I take the position that there are none."

You could also be theist and agnostic:
�I hold the view that the existence of a deity is unknowable. But, I believe that this universe must have some central force/deity; therefore I take the position that there is a deity.�

So, agnosticism and atheism are simply describing different things. One, the view of whether the existence of a deity is provable, the other the personal position regarding the existence of one.

Hope that's helpful.

Quote:

�Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims�especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims�is unknown or unknowable�
�Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.�

pucciniphile

Joined: 23 Jun 2011

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject:

I wrote:

Junior wrote:

Of course. Because nothing has changed. Evolution didn't ocurr.

Thanks again for your support.

So if our species hasn't evolved since Old Testament times,
no species has ever evolved?

I wish I could impress on you that inductive reasoning cannot purport to give conclusive evidence:

There are no sunspots in Tippecanoe.
There are no sunspots in Timbuktu.
There are no sunspots in Kalamazoo.
Therefore, there are no sunspots.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 43, 44, 45 Next
Page 44 of 45

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe