So, You Don't Believe In Noah's Ark? Guess Again!

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Jeannette, May 20, 2020.

  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    prove a god exists, then you can try and prove it created a cell.
     
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct.

    You don't know that.

    Geologists don't know that.

    Maybe.
     
  3. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not possible to prove/disprove the existence of a god(s). Attempting to do so leads to numerous logical fallacies.

    Yes he did.

    That's all that he needs to do.

    Science has nothing to do with religion. They are completely separate things.

    Your point?

    This has no effect on religion.
     
  4. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) not sure why you are still dwelling on Stalin - since it is a nonsense comparison to begin with - one evil act does not justify another -
    2) Your claim of 20,000 - killed by not "The inquisition" - but nice try at moving the goal post - but by the evil religious doctrine .. throughout the 1000 years of horror.

    Just to point out how laughable your claim is - that there were only 20,000 killed due to Church dogma over 200 years.

    https://www.ancient.eu/Cathars/

    That particular crusade lasted for 20 years - and 20,000 were killed in just one massacre of one town and surrounding area.

    Your claim is way off the deep end "Pants on Fire" false.

    Who said anything about the teachings of Jesus.... The Church after Constantine became an anathema to the teachings of Jesus.

    I have not ignored anything. Just stating simple facts. Hitler Stalin and Obama did many Charitable things - does that make them good people ? What kind of silliness is this.

    Church doctrine and dogma went south after gaining power under Constantine - This is the point under discussion - not whether or not evil people can do charitable things - or whether people can do charitable things under the guise of evil doctrine :)
     
    Derideo_Te, trevorw2539 and Cosmo like this.
  5. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    People sure do love to cherry pick, don't they? ;)
     
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not possible to prove/disprove god(s). You are attempting to force him into committing numerous logical fallacies (circular argument fallacy, argument from ignorance fallacy, etc...)
     
  7. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,813
    Trophy Points:
    113
    there is good and bad done by Christians, they are just people, like everyone else
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
    Derideo_Te, trevorw2539 and Cosmo like this.
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    then claiming as fact that all life was created by a god is silly.
    no I'm forcing him to examine his claims, and come to terms with the reality that his beliefs are nonsense.
     
  9. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have actually come a long way into figuring out what primitive life looked like. We have known about the building blocks - amino acids -being created in primitive earth conditions - for decades. More recent work - designed to mirror natural processes such as wetting and dessication - by tidal action - found Nucleic acids were formed - RNA - but more importantly "self replicating molecules"

    https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

    Self Replication has always been a stumbling block - that block is now removed. As soon as you get molecules that can reproduce themselves .. evolution of these molecules over time becomes inevitable.
     
    Derideo_Te, trevorw2539 and Cosmo like this.
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Technically, a fact is not a universal truth nor is it a proof. A fact (as defined by logic) is simply an assumed predicate. This could be classified as a fact given that you and I both agree on it. If I disagree with it, then the "fact" returns into being an argument.

    The term "theory" is still appropriate. A theory (as defined by logic) is simply an explanatory argument.

    The Theory of Evolution is a religious belief. The theory cannot be falsified. This is not saying that evolution itself does not occur, but that the particular theory that "current life is a result of mutations of more primitive life" is not falsifiable. It is a religious belief.
     
  11. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ID is a religion, like Abiogenesis is. All that can be done is a presentation of various supporting evidences. In the end, they are both religions and are both (not simultaneously, however) able to be accepted as true on a faith basis. To attempt to prove either one of them would be to commit the circular argument fallacy (and likely other related fallacies).

    ID and Evolution are not contradictory theories. One could logically believe in both theories simultaneously.
     
    Giftedone and ToddWB like this.
  12. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No it's not. It's just stating a held belief.

    You can't force him to do anything.

    His belief is based on the same logical framework that your opposing belief is.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
  13. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no, it's silly.

    of course I can

    no it isn't. mine is based on proven science and experimentation. His is based on religious beliefs
     
  14. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The theory could be falsified by many conceivable lines of evidence.
    You have presented no science (articles, papers, etc.) to refute evidence for evolution.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I do. It's impossible both hydrologically and gravitationally

    Geologist do know that. Look up Tularosa Basin, Lake Alamosa Down millions of years there have been other lakes which have disappeared but are still known.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  16. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that the Rock that the Jesus character built his church on?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  17. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you ever seen a cell?
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  18. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,215
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Technically, a fact is not a universal truth nor is it a proof. A fact (as defined by logic) is simply an assumed predicate. This could be classified as a fact given that you and I both agree on it. If I disagree with it, then the "fact" returns into being an argument.
    .
    A fact is something that has actual existence, is real. is truth. If you disagree with a proven fact - truth - reality - then you are wrong.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  19. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is True - as per post 184: ....."Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry," said Sutherland. "They're doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn't be viewed as complicated."

    So who did it - put these rules in place - We don't know - but the two choices are "Someone did" or "They were just there"

    That Evolution - the mechanics of the thing - could be function of either ID or "the rules are just the rules".

    and there is no way to prove which one it is ..

    I myself prefer to think that there is some force(s) out there - with God like powers - that might - or might not - check in on the experiment labeled "Earth" from time to time.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Stating a belief is not "silly".

    No you can't.

    Yes, it is. Study up on logic.

    ** Science cannot be "proven". It is an open functional system, dude. It does not make use of proofs.

    ** Atheism is a religious belief no different than how Theism is a religious belief. They make use of the same logical framework (an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it).
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2020
    ToddWB likes this.
  21. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. There is no accessible way to falsify the theory that current life forms are the result of the mutations of more primitive life forms. We cannot go back in time to see what actually happened regarding the earliest of life forms. What actually happened back then is anyone's guess.

    A theory can only be falsified with conflicting evidence. We would need to go back in time and show (in an accessible, practical, specific way, yielding a specific result) that there isn't a chain of mutations spanning from the earliest most primitive life forms to the latest most complex life forms. We have no way of doing this, thus we have no way of falsifying the Theory of Evolution. While we do know that evolution (at least on a micro level) does occur, and that this truth could be used as supporting evidence for the Theory of Evolution, it doesn't necessarily mean that the Theory of Evolution itself is true. The theory, thus, remains a religion. It cannot move beyond being a circular argument.

    Articles, papers, etc. are not science. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. (or, if you prefer different semantics, science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature).

    I'm not trying to refute the Theory of Evolution, nor the evidence for the Theory. In fact, I am an agnostic regarding the Theory. I simply don't care whether the Theory is true or not. I'm more interested in helping people realize that the Theory of Evolution is actually "religion" rather than "science" (and the logical framework behind why that is the case).

    I'm not interested in encouraging or discouraging people from believing in the Theory.
     
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You haven't falsified the Flood of Noah. A flood to that extent is indeed possible.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2020
  23. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    some beliefs are silly.

    of course I can
    we've already established you don't know anything about logic. You throw out logical fallacy terms but have no idea what they mean.

    some things in science are proven.
    atheism, by definition, is not a religion.
    this has been refuted already.
     
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    a global flood covering all land masses is physically impossible.
     
    Derideo_Te, trevorw2539 and Cosmo like this.
  25. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I prefer to think this way as well. Personally, I believe that this "force" is the Christian God as mentioned in the Holy Bible. Others believe in other "force(s)", and others don't attempt to identify such "force(s)".
     

Share This Page