Hope you err locked the door...Kurieuo wrote:Sorry... err... just had a quick ... nap.
Mrs K and I were just a bit tired.
Dont want kids um disturbing your ah sleep
Do you both feel refreshed now?
Hope you err locked the door...Kurieuo wrote:Sorry... err... just had a quick ... nap.
Mrs K and I were just a bit tired.
That song is like having a pic of the in laws on the bedroom wallRickD wrote:http://youtu.be/tpGRdX5sUAsKurieuo wrote:Sorry... err... just had a quick ... nap.
Mrs K and I were just a bit tired.
I'm not going to call myself an agnostic because I'm not on the fence about the existence of gods. I don't believe that they exist.RickD wrote:Ed,
You made an assertion that God doesn't exist. You'd have been better off just claiming agnosticism, and saying that you don't know if God exists. But, since you made a positive assertion, that God doesn't exist, it's completely dishonest to think you shouldn't have to back your assertion.
I've never asked B.W. to prove that god exists, and I never will. He doesn't have an argument that I'm going to accept, so why bother bringing it up? Granted, I've blasted him on some other stuff, but when I call BS on some persecution claim or supposed liberal plot I do the research and cite my sources. And as a progressive, liberal atheist with democratic socialist leanings I can't very well sit by while he makes all kinds of false and insulting statements about me, can I? Trust me, he gives as good as he gets.RickD wrote:Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim. You rail against B. W. Yet you don't have the stones to back up your beliefs.
Yeah, sorry about that. I meant it as a lighthearted riposte - because come on, you didn't really think I was going to try to prove that god doesn't exist. Unfortunately tone is impossible to read, so it came off as extremely rude. That was not my intent and I apologize.RickD wrote:And btw, think of this as a warning for your tone. Calling moderators liars, will get you another ban. We were gracious enough to allow you to return, even though you tried to circumvent the rules. Be careful.
So are you saying that if someone is a creationist they have little, or no understanding of science?Audie wrote:"Proof of atheism" is just nonsense. It literally has no meaning.Storyteller wrote:The way I see it. We all have the same evidence. We just believe it supports different things.
I'm not sure ToE is used as proof of atheism either.
Evolution has nothing to do with the existence / nonexistence of any god.
Trying to use a theory to prove anyghing is nuts, if anyone even tries to.
Oh...and we all, in principle, have access to the same info.
It is far from true to say that any honest creationist has much knowledge
of science. Possible access, and actual comprehension, knowledge are not the same,
at all.
Otherwise, toss a medical book to the janitor, have him do brain surgery.
Any takers?
Interestingly Ededwardmurphy wrote:I'm not going to call myself an agnostic because I'm not on the fence about the existence of gods. I don't believe that they exist.RickD wrote:Ed,
You made an assertion that God doesn't exist. You'd have been better off just claiming agnosticism, and saying that you don't know if God exists. But, since you made a positive assertion, that God doesn't exist, it's completely dishonest to think you shouldn't have to back your assertion.
You need to understand that I'm speaking for myself, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else of anything. I don't believe in gods, but that doesn't mean that I can prove that they don't exist. Nobody can prove that. So what? The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Russel's Teapot are equally unassailable, and so is anything else that anyone can dream up, provided that they describe it as omnipotent, invisible, undetectable, and not subject to scientific scrutiny. The fact that I can't disprove the existence of god tells me one thing - apologists are good at what they do.
I'm not going to pick up the burden of proof simply because I didn't take the time to phrase my statement in such a way as to avoid the appearance of making a positive claim. To me "I don't believe in gods" and Gods don't exist" are the same statement, but somehow one is safe and the other saddles me with the burden of proof. Forget it. I'm not going to play that game.
I've never asked B.W. to prove that god exists, and I never will. He doesn't have an argument that I'm going to accept, so why bother bringing it up? Granted, I've blasted him on some other stuff, but when I call BS on some persecution claim or supposed liberal plot I do the research and cite my sources. And as a progressive, liberal atheist with democratic socialist leanings I can't very well sit by while he makes all kinds of false and insulting statements about me, can I? Trust me, he gives as good as he gets.RickD wrote:Frankly, with all the railing you do against certain people here, I really would have thought you would've put forth proof for your claim. You rail against B. W. Yet you don't have the stones to back up your beliefs.
In summation, stones aren't the issue here. I've backed up my position as well as it can be backed up, but you don't accept it as valid and you're not going to. What more is there to do?
Yeah, sorry about that. I meant it as a lighthearted riposte - because come on, you didn't really think I was going to try to prove that god doesn't exist. Unfortunately tone is impossible to read, so it came off as extremely rude. That was not my intent and I apologize.RickD wrote:And btw, think of this as a warning for your tone. Calling moderators liars, will get you another ban. We were gracious enough to allow you to return, even though you tried to circumvent the rules. Be careful.
No, and I have expressed myself clearly on this.Storyteller wrote:So are you saying that if someone is a creationist they have little, or no understanding of science?Audie wrote:"Proof of atheism" is just nonsense. It literally has no meaning.Storyteller wrote:The way I see it. We all have the same evidence. We just believe it supports different things.
I'm not sure ToE is used as proof of atheism either.
Evolution has nothing to do with the existence / nonexistence of any god.
Trying to use a theory to prove anyghing is nuts, if anyone even tries to.
Oh...and we all, in principle, have access to the same info.
It is far from true to say that any honest creationist has much knowledge
of science. Possible access, and actual comprehension, knowledge are not the same,
at all.
Otherwise, toss a medical book to the janitor, have him do brain surgery.
Any takers?
And Audie, can you explain, or provide me with an example of, a transitional fossil? Please?
I do not think evolution will ever be discredited in the public eye, because at the moment it is the best theory we have which fits the available facts. I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.
The atheist who use it as a club to bludgeon theists is simply making a schoolboy mistake: all evolution disproves is Biblical literalism, that the Six Days of Creation in Genesis are literal. Saint Augustine did not think they were, nor do I, nor can they be, since the first and second chapter of Genesis give different accounts.
Evolution does not disprove God any more than it disproves theosophy or neoplatonism or Keynesianism. Evolution is a theory of biology, a way of interpreting facts into a framework. It stands or falls based on philosophical considerations of the utility of the framework, namely, does the theory explain more than it confounds?
Belief in God, on the other hand, is a theological stance. It stands or falls based on one character, one’s insight, and the logical relation between the stance and the accepted authorities charged with transmitting revealed truth, that is, the Church. A theological stance that offends scripture or Church teaching is not disproved like a scientific theory is disproved: it is declared anathema. It is condemned more for its disloyalty to the teachings of the Apostle than for its logical incoherence (albeit that plays a role in theological argument as well).
So the two things, belief in evolution and belief in God, are as unrelated as taste in music and belief in the free market. The operate in different spheres by different rules using different standards of truth and resting on different authorities to render a verdict.
When I was an atheist, I did not use the argument that since Darwin penning ORIGIN OF SPECIES was right, ergo Moses penning chapter one of GENESIS must be wrong, since the argument simply does not follow.
Darwin wrote a philosophical ‘just-so’ story to explain how species could arise from variations in breeding, which he called by the oxymoronic name of natural selection, that is, unselected selection, unguided guidance.
Moses wrote a hymn.
I chose the horse as an easy familiar example.Storyteller wrote:Thanks Audie
I`m not a YEC so I can`t comment on that. I`m more of your OEC/Progressive Creationist I think. I don`t have a problem with evolution, per se but I don`t really know all the ins and outs of it either so I`m undecided. Evolution and God can co exist in my opinion.
Thanks for the example, I want to study this a bit more before I get back to you. As for the three toed horse, I forgot about those
Not bad other than the rather idiotic comments in bold.PaulSacramento wrote:John Wright on evolution and belief:I do not think evolution will ever be discredited in the public eye, because at the moment it is the best theory we have which fits the available facts. I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.
The atheist who use it as a club to bludgeon theists is simply making a schoolboy mistake: all evolution disproves is Biblical literalism, that the Six Days of Creation in Genesis are literal. Saint Augustine did not think they were, nor do I, nor can they be, since the first and second chapter of Genesis give different accounts.
Evolution does not disprove God any more than it disproves theosophy or neoplatonism or Keynesianism. Evolution is a theory of biology, a way of interpreting facts into a framework. It stands or falls based on philosophical considerations of the utility of the framework, namely, does the theory explain more than it confounds?
Belief in God, on the other hand, is a theological stance. It stands or falls based on one character, one’s insight, and the logical relation between the stance and the accepted authorities charged with transmitting revealed truth, that is, the Church. A theological stance that offends scripture or Church teaching is not disproved like a scientific theory is disproved: it is declared anathema. It is condemned more for its disloyalty to the teachings of the Apostle than for its logical incoherence (albeit that plays a role in theological argument as well).
So the two things, belief in evolution and belief in God, are as unrelated as taste in music and belief in the free market. The operate in different spheres by different rules using different standards of truth and resting on different authorities to render a verdict.
When I was an atheist, I did not use the argument that since Darwin penning ORIGIN OF SPECIES was right, ergo Moses penning chapter one of GENESIS must be wrong, since the argument simply does not follow.
Darwin wrote a philosophical ‘just-so’ story to explain how species could arise from variations in breeding, which he called by the oxymoronic name of natural selection, that is, unselected selection, unguided guidance.
Moses wrote a hymn.
Audie wrote:Not bad other than the rather idiotic comments in bold.PaulSacramento wrote:John Wright on evolution and belief:I do not think evolution will ever be discredited in the public eye, because at the moment it is the best theory we have which fits the available facts. I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.
The atheist who use it as a club to bludgeon theists is simply making a schoolboy mistake: all evolution disproves is Biblical literalism, that the Six Days of Creation in Genesis are literal. Saint Augustine did not think they were, nor do I, nor can they be, since the first and second chapter of Genesis give different accounts.
Evolution does not disprove God any more than it disproves theosophy or neoplatonism or Keynesianism. Evolution is a theory of biology, a way of interpreting facts into a framework. It stands or falls based on philosophical considerations of the utility of the framework, namely, does the theory explain more than it confounds?
Belief in God, on the other hand, is a theological stance. It stands or falls based on one character, one’s insight, and the logical relation between the stance and the accepted authorities charged with transmitting revealed truth, that is, the Church. A theological stance that offends scripture or Church teaching is not disproved like a scientific theory is disproved: it is declared anathema. It is condemned more for its disloyalty to the teachings of the Apostle than for its logical incoherence (albeit that plays a role in theological argument as well).
So the two things, belief in evolution and belief in God, are as unrelated as taste in music and belief in the free market. The operate in different spheres by different rules using different standards of truth and resting on different authorities to render a verdict.
When I was an atheist, I did not use the argument that since Darwin penning ORIGIN OF SPECIES was right, ergo Moses penning chapter one of GENESIS must be wrong, since the argument simply does not follow.
Darwin wrote a philosophical ‘just-so’ story to explain how species could arise from variations in breeding, which he called by the oxymoronic name of natural selection, that is, unselected selection, unguided guidance.
Moses wrote a hymn.
As you know, the scientific method is clear and one of the key elements in proving a scientific hypothesis is if it is falsifiable:I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.
Ok; ok. He THINKS it is not a theory.PaulSacramento wrote:Audie wrote:Not bad other than the rather idiotic comments in bold.PaulSacramento wrote:John Wright on evolution and belief:I do not think evolution will ever be discredited in the public eye, because at the moment it is the best theory we have which fits the available facts. I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.
The atheist who use it as a club to bludgeon theists is simply making a schoolboy mistake: all evolution disproves is Biblical literalism, that the Six Days of Creation in Genesis are literal. Saint Augustine did not think they were, nor do I, nor can they be, since the first and second chapter of Genesis give different accounts.
Evolution does not disprove God any more than it disproves theosophy or neoplatonism or Keynesianism. Evolution is a theory of biology, a way of interpreting facts into a framework. It stands or falls based on philosophical considerations of the utility of the framework, namely, does the theory explain more than it confounds?
Belief in God, on the other hand, is a theological stance. It stands or falls based on one character, one’s insight, and the logical relation between the stance and the accepted authorities charged with transmitting revealed truth, that is, the Church. A theological stance that offends scripture or Church teaching is not disproved like a scientific theory is disproved: it is declared anathema. It is condemned more for its disloyalty to the teachings of the Apostle than for its logical incoherence (albeit that plays a role in theological argument as well).
So the two things, belief in evolution and belief in God, are as unrelated as taste in music and belief in the free market. The operate in different spheres by different rules using different standards of truth and resting on different authorities to render a verdict.
When I was an atheist, I did not use the argument that since Darwin penning ORIGIN OF SPECIES was right, ergo Moses penning chapter one of GENESIS must be wrong, since the argument simply does not follow.
Darwin wrote a philosophical ‘just-so’ story to explain how species could arise from variations in breeding, which he called by the oxymoronic name of natural selection, that is, unselected selection, unguided guidance.
Moses wrote a hymn.
Actually Audie there is not idiotic about those comments, considering how they are qualified.
Note in regards to the TOE:As you know, the scientific method is clear and one of the key elements in proving a scientific hypothesis is if it is falsifiable:I simply think it is not a scientific theory, since it cannot be proven or disproven.
a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.
In regards to his view on "natural selection".
Yes, Darwin wrote something that,at the time, could not be proven and wrote it neatly and carefully.
That is called ( by writers) "just-so" writing.
As for the term "natural selection" being an oxymoron.
http://www.debate.org/debates/Natural-S ... xymoron/1/
Prease exprain what he was actually saying.PaulSacramento wrote:Before you call things idiotic just because you disagree with them, maybe you should try to understand the context of the post and what the writer was actually saying.
Woah, and I thought she can't get any more dumb.Audie wrote:An informed person knows there is no disproof of ToE.