- Joined
- Jun 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 3,353
my bad voodooThat wasn't me that said that. How did you quote the wrong person?
my bad voodooThat wasn't me that said that. How did you quote the wrong person?
Um. I'm pretty sure you are a bible-thumper which leaves you without a leg to stand on when it comes to commenting about who basis their worldview on an appeal to authority.
Sorry guys but evolution is a fairy tale. Its also a racist theory.
You started out pretty strong here, especially impressed with how you brought race into it, very apropos.Evolution is what gave rise to the eugenics movement. The theory inevitably leads to racial hiearchies that put so called white people on top.
Also, it's not real.
This is where it goes off the rails. You barely got out of first gear and jumped straight into double digit page count thread material.The Scriptures are, for the most part, a literal account of history.
I really like this as a jumping off point for some of your more unorthodox stuff, like your ideas on celestial bodies, but we usually don't reach this point until we're past the page 50 mark.The Bible should be taught in science class, history class, philosophy, sociology, civics, and the arts.
Oh man, a good ol' fashioned evolution vs creation thread. This takes me back.
If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one was there to hear it, does it make a sound?Science is basically observation. You look at something and you draw conclusions. No one observed creation, no one was there except the Creator. Science can say nothing about origins. Science can say nothing about how the universe came into existence because no one was there.
Yes, we can set up our own experiment. Cut a tree to where it's about ready to fall. Have a trail cam with a microphone to record the sound with no one there to hear it fall. It's a repeatable and observable experiment.If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one was there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Yes, we can set up our own experiment. Cut a tree to where it's about ready to fall. Have a trail cam with a microphone to record the sound with no one there to hear it fall. It's a repeatable and observable experiment.
Science doesn't really have to explain an origin story if the universe or "something" is infinite.
Sounds like you don't understand your "creator"...
The camera is an observer.Yes, we can set up our own experiment. Cut a tree to where it's about ready to fall. Have a trail cam with a microphone to record the sound with no one there to hear it fall. It's a repeatable and observable experiment.
They can, there are many rigorous and consistent ontologies that are that.Why can't one believe in god but also believe in science and reject the dogmatic, made up bullshit in the bible?
Yes, we can set up our own experiment. Cut a tree to where it's about ready to fall. Have a trail cam with a microphone to record the sound with no one there to hear it fall. It's a repeatable and observable experiment.
We believe what we believe I guess.Why can't one believe in god but also believe in science and reject the dogmatic, made up bullshit in the bible?
Great, and if I find a tree that fell without anyone there to hear or record it can I conclude it made a sound?
The Materialist/Physicalist ontology seems very solid with a lot of evidence to me. If you believe the Big Bang was a Creation event and God created the universe at the Big Bang I completely understand that, I don't know what I think about that.
But Materialism is very compelling as an ontology to me. TBH I don't see how one could deny it, Materialism just seems right. If there is a God and the God created the universe, it seems to have done it materially, in a way that is not what the bible depicts.
What do you mean by "utterly fail to describe the universe"? We can completely deterministically describe the motion of bodies, as well as the evolution of the wave function of every particle that exists.Why does materialism seem right to you? Despite the best efforts of the greatest minds of all the world's history, science and math still utterly fail to describe the universe. At best, you have made a very crude model, but noone is anywhere near the truth.
Yes.
Unless you believe that sound only exists when there is a method of observation, and that seems silly.
lol just stop with the facile strawman analogies. You know that's disingenuous- or maybe you don't know why, in which case you don't at all understand the theory you are wholesale criticising.Think of it another way. You have a television. Just imagine that your television assembled itself together, put itself in a box with all of the capabilities that it has. The remote also assembled itself together compatibly with the television so that you could operate it the way you do. Anyone that tried to advocate this would be fit for a mental institution. There is no proof of macro evolution.
Despite the best efforts of the greatest minds of all the world's history, science and math still utterly fail to describe the universe. At best, you have made a very crude model, but noone is anywhere near the truth.