Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,871 Year: 4,128/9,624 Month: 999/974 Week: 326/286 Day: 47/40 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Social and Religious Issues ⇒ Faith and Belief ⇒

God caused or uncaused?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5937 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007

Normal Thread Display
Message 67 of 297 (416586)
08-16-2007 8:34 PM 		Reply to: Message 62 by Rob
08-16-2007 6:09 AM

Switching terms
Rob, notice the quote said
Proteins do self-assemble without DNA.
But you said
Rob writes:
​
There is no known self-organizing mechanism in nature.
and
Rob writes:
​
..self sustaining assembly...
​
I hope you just accidently used those terms, because they're not the same thing as the original comment.
​
And another thing:
​
Rob writes:
​
It is the doctrine of the Trinity. And it was made up by a few fishermen who got lucky I guess...
The Trinity wasn't made up by fishermen. It was made up by various theologians around the fourth century AD, after the First Council of Nicaea.
​
Edited by Doddy, : No reason given.
​
Edited by Doddy, : plurals
​
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
​
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
​
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Rob, posted 08-16-2007 6:09 AM Rob has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 2:58 AM Doddy has not replied
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5937 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007

Normal Thread Display
Message 115 of 297 (417388)
08-20-2007 7:31 PM 		Reply to: Message 111 by sidelined
08-20-2007 7:57 AM

Re: Alright let's look at this...
sidelined writes:
​
Testing is not supposed to be valid,it is demonstrated to be valid and that is the difference.
Likewise, I could say: 'Faith is not demonstrated to be valid - it is faithfully believed to be valid.'
​
I don't think you can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps like that. Seems a little like 'begging the question' to me.
​
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
​
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
​
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by sidelined, posted 08-20-2007 7:57 AM sidelined has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by sidelined, posted 08-21-2007 7:20 AM Doddy has replied
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5937 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007

Normal Thread Display
Message 117 of 297 (417425)
08-21-2007 12:23 AM 		Reply to: Message 116 by Rob
08-20-2007 9:47 PM

Re: For the love of reason, slow down mark...
[Evolution is] universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.
That's right, Rob. Even in 1929, they knew that creationism made no sense.
​
Fortunately for us, 78 years later, we have mountains more evidence, especially from genetics, showing evolution to be true.
​
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
​
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rob, posted 08-20-2007 9:47 PM Rob has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 2:12 AM Doddy has not replied
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5937 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007

Normal Thread Display
Message 122 of 297 (417456)
08-21-2007 8:06 AM 		Reply to: Message 121 by sidelined
08-21-2007 7:20 AM

Chain of reasoning
Ok, I will write this out nice and simple.
​
1. Testing is valid.
2. Tests demonstrate testing to be valid.
3. Therefore, testing is valid.
​
You're assuming the very thing you're supposed to be proving. It's akin to the question begging that Bible-thumpers do:
​
1. The Bible is true.
2. The Bible states that the Bible is true.
3. Therefore, the Bible is true.
​
Edited by Doddy, : sdelling
​
Edited by Doddy, : clarify first example
​
Edited by Doddy, : I bad at grammar
​
Edited by Doddy, : informative subtitles
​
Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
​
What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by sidelined, posted 08-21-2007 7:20 AM sidelined has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by sidelined, posted 08-23-2007 7:42 PM Doddy has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024