Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2019 5:10 PM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,008 Year: 7,044/19,786 Month: 1,585/1,581 Week: 407/393 Day: 41/90 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your First Ever EVC Post
Modulous
Member (Idle past 244 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 24 of 140 (529802)
10-10-2009 4:21 PM


Humble beginnings
That's quite funny, because, in essence, you have destroyed the claims of Pasteur, Mendel, and other scientists. Even the evolutionists would disagree with you.

I'm curious to know which claims? Pasteur showed that germs cause things to rot/sour (as opposed to souring and rotting causing germs), and Mendel discovered the idea of dominant genes and heredity...an essential element of evolution. Which claims did these scientists make?

And more importantly, what experiments have "actually proved [macroevolution] wrong"? I'd like to see these experiments, they seem to have been underplayed considerably which would be a tragedy for science.

Message 62

Looks like I began how I intended to go on. Though I think I was more prone to ask rhetorical questions than maybe I am now.

Then I talked about HHGTTG in Message 10 and then on my third post I tackled mike the wiz:

Premises
So, your conclusion is that if you start with faulty premises, you get faulty conclusions? I agree. It isn't a problem with logic - it's a problem for people who use faulty premises.

in Message 21

However, I really cut my teeth on IDer Jerry Don Bauer, with a bit of backwards and forwards in 10 Categories of Evidence For ID:

In conclusion, you have succesfully shown that life has been designed. You have yet to demonstrate how it was designed intelligently. Evolutionary theory proposes a mechanism for both the design and the creation of new creatures, and uses the same evidence. I'm fascinated by the field of ID, but I've only ever seen the 'D' part really discussed. Now, about this 'I' component...how to detect intelligence? That's the golden egg for IDists. Several thousand years later and we aren't massively closer to an answer. Evolutionary theory is less than two centuries old.

I think some posters here will get kicks out of my first encounter with the IPU in Message 233

Besides how do you know if souls exist and if they do that invisible pink (or purple) unicorns aren't and integral part of them?

...If unicorns of any variety (can something which light passes through, reflect light at a certain wavelength?), were somehow of fundamental importance to souls, I'm sure Christ, or one of the prophets would have mentioned it.

Then again, you raise a valid theological issue, perhaps the transubstantiation of the invisible unicorn to a unicorn of specific colour is intertwined in the nature of that which is soul. Perhaps this trinity (invisible, purple, unicorn) is on a strictly need to know basis, and we simply don't need to know.

I lurked for a long time before 'getting stuck in' - but once I broke silence it proved difficult to keep my quiet for the next four and a half years.


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019