Creation vs. Evolution II

[Jose Fly]

1) Self-evident: Your own mind and values point to the fact, despite cognitive dissonance.

That's nothing more than an empty assertion of "it's obvious".

2) Spinoza's God: If it is exists, it has to be a property of what created it. Regardless if you think the universe created you, 'intelligence' is part of the universe and you didn't create yourself. IOW "Intelligence created you by the reflective principle: "you can't have it unless it exists."
Not many scientists I've met seem to grasp the philosophical reality of this proof. It cannot be debated.

That's nothing more than making an unfounded assertion, "if X exists, it must have come from something with X", and using it to assume your conclusion.

3) You didn't create yourself therefore you have a creator/Creator

And that's just plain stupid. I was "created" by my parents.

thus: Creation is, in fact, science whether you can use your senses to prove the fact or not.

That you truly believe those arguments to be compelling says a lot about you.

You not being able to test it as a puny human has nothing to do with the universe existing, and reliably evident without you, or another in particular. IOW, it doesn't matter if you recognize it or not, facts are just facts in and of themselves.

At least you admit we can't test any of this.

4) I particularly, know there is a God.

There are people who by the same token "know" that the world governments are run by reptilian aliens in disguise.

It is fact simply because "I" know is fact.

Gee...how fortunate we are to have in our midst the absolute determinant of all reality.....Lon. If "Lon" at an internet forum says something is true, it is so.

Buzz Aldrin knows the world is a globe, for instance and it doesn't matter if you or I know it as fact. Facts just are, and by that standard, whether you or another can actualize it (recognize it).

Yeah, but I can see a real-time image of a global earth. I can conduct all sorts of tests and measurements to demonstrate its global nature. Conversely, as you admitted above, "god" cannot be measured or tested, so the two aren't analogous at all.

If this is the best you have to establish "creation is a fact", I'll just note the obvious double standard you have for things you believe in vs. things you deny.

 

[Lon]

That's nothing more than an empty assertion of "it's obvious".

Er, 'self-evident' is 'obvious.' You cannot have something that doesn't exist. There is no intelligence without intelligence. It has to exist or it doesn't exist. You are intelligent enough to figure this part out.

That's nothing more than making an unfounded assertion, "if X exists, it must have come from something with X", and using it to assume your conclusion.

Er, that isn't unfounded. If you see yourself in the mirror, you 'see' you exist. It isn't adding, it is reflexive. The mirror isn't showing you anything BUT what is there.

And that's just plain stupid.

Is it? :think:

I was "created" by my parents.

Ah, so it isn't stupid.... You, too, believe in creation science. Try not to posturize when it isn't necessary.
Okay, we mean something different (not too much really on this), but you've admitted that science is creation here.

Often it is inaccurate vernacular that separates...

That you truly believe those arguments to be compelling says a lot about you.

Well, really, it says more about your philosophy understanding.

At least you admit we can't test any of this.

There is a lot, even of the physical universe, we cannot test. I cannot, practically, ever do Buzz Aldrin's research. There are people that still disbelieve that he left the earth (some of them Christians even). For whatever peace or conclusion such provides, yes, I do admit this for the concession.

There are people who by the same token "know" that the world governments are run by reptilian aliens in disguise.

If more than nine in ten believed it, I'd have to revisit my dissonance. The audience is right more than 90% of the time. At least that's the statistical conclusion at present...

Gee...how fortunate we are to have in our midst the absolute determinant of all reality.....Lon. If "Lon" at an internet forum says something is true, it is so.

Er, you missed the point. We all have areas of expertise and are better suited to speak about those respective disciplines. Philosophically and speaking as a Christian, creation is fact. You yourself admitted to some form of creation science as fact with your parents. I cannot do better than that.

Yeah, but I can see a real-time image of a global earth. I can conduct all sorts of tests and measurements to demonstrate its global nature. Conversely, as you admitted above, "god" cannot be measured or tested, so the two aren't analogous at all.

It is in the sense that practically, neither you nor I can perform his tests or possess his immediate observations. Try to key in on the points that are analogous. You can, practically, interact with God. He has promised to be found by all who seek Him. I have no specified program or experiment guidance for you to follow. I do know that such is empirical. I also believe there are self-evident truths that, in and of themselves, are their own indications (like the horizon tells us the earth isn't flat).

If this is the best you have to establish "creation is a fact", I'll just note the obvious double standard you have for things you believe in vs. things you deny.

Were you asking for a dissertation? I'll tell you again: You CANNOT have intelligence in the universe without it being a property in/of the universe. Let me put it another way: Logically, (which is the topic reflexively and reflectively as self-existent) intelligence exists in the universe. Logically, none of us created ourselves. Purpose begets purpose. There is no 'meaning' in the universe without 'meaning.' It simply 'is.' Therefore, it is 'logical' to say we are here, with purpose, because of purpose. It cannot exist, reflexively otherwise. Science misses, or simply avoids that. You might not need to know there is a God to produce an inflammatory, but that doesn't mean 1) He is missing from the equation nor 2) that you might not actually do better science when you consider all truths that have to exist within any particular science inquiry. Now, I realize most science is myopic and works that way. I'm not really trying to redo science, just trying to get a few scientists to realize something else, which may/can make them better scientists. Anecdotal: 'why we do what we do' is as important as 'doing what we do.' If you care about people who have cancer, you might be the guy/girl that finds a cure. It has happened and will happen again, exactly that way.

 

[everready]

So that's it? "It's in the Bible, therefore it is a fact"?

Yes Jose' Its that simple, Gods word is fact..


everready

 

[gcthomas]

Yes Jose' Its that simple, Gods word is fact..

... only if the Bible is God's word.

And that is a belief, not a self evident fact.

 

[Jose Fly]

Er, 'self-evident' is 'obvious.'

Exactly. You simply asserted that "it's obvious" and expected the assertion to be compelling.

Er, that isn't unfounded. If you see yourself in the mirror, you 'see' you exist. It isn't adding, it is reflexive. The mirror isn't showing you anything BUT what is there.

No, your unfounded assertion was that if X exists, it must have come from something with X. But we know for a fact that's not true. For example, I can take 2 moles of hydrogen and 1 mole of oxygen, spark the mixture, and I will get water (H20). Did the water come from water? No, it came from a hydrogen and oxygen mixture and energy.

Ah, so it isn't stupid.... You, too, believe in creation science.

Ok, at this point you need to define "creation" and "creation science" before we can continue.

There is a lot, even of the physical universe, we cannot test. I cannot, practically, ever do Buzz Aldrin's research.

Yes you can. Humans fly into space and see a global earth all the time.

If more than nine in ten believed it, I'd have to revisit my dissonance. The audience is right more than 90% of the time. At least that's the statistical conclusion at present...

Really? That's your standard? If 90% of an "audience" believes something, it is therefore true? Sheesh.....

Philosophically and speaking as a Christian, creation is fact. You yourself admitted to some form of creation science as fact with your parents. I cannot do better than that.

I admitted no such thing. You need to define "creation" and "creation science" before I agree to anything about either.

It is in the sense that practically, neither you nor I can perform his tests or possess his immediate observations.

Yes we can.

You can, practically, interact with God. He has promised to be found by all who seek Him. I have no specified program or experiment guidance for you to follow.

Then you've simply made an empty assertion that a "god" can be interacted with, while refusing to describe how it can be done.

Were you asking for a dissertation?

No, but you've given me pretty much what I expected.

I'll tell you again: You CANNOT have intelligence in the universe without it being a property in/of the universe.

Why not? Why can't intelligence be something that, while not initially present in the universe, develops over time? We see that with other things, so why not intelligence?

Purpose begets purpose. There is no 'meaning' in the universe without 'meaning.' It simply 'is.' Therefore, it is 'logical' to say we are here, with purpose, because of purpose.

But that purpose and meaning doesn't have to come from a god. It could easily be something I make up myself.

You might not need to know there is a God to produce an inflammatory, but that doesn't mean 1) He is missing from the equation nor 2) that you might not actually do better science when you consider all truths that have to exist within any particular science inquiry. Now, I realize most science is myopic and works that way. I'm not really trying to redo science, just trying to get a few scientists to realize something else, which may/can make them better scientists.

Given your obvious profound ignorance of the basics of science, I'll take your recommendations for what they are.

Anecdotal: 'why we do what we do' is as important as 'doing what we do.' If you care about people who have cancer, you might be the guy/girl that finds a cure. It has happened and will happen again, exactly that way.

No one has said otherwise.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes Jose' Its that simple, Gods word is fact..

Thanks for being honest.

 

[Lon]

Exactly. You simply asserted that "it's obvious" and expected the assertion to be compelling.

It is. If you EVER stop yourself and think, you will figure something out. Right now, you are more 'in'-doctrinated than you realize. You are using something else to rule what is true, and it isn't the best ruler for doing so. In this case, your tools are what is in question. What is self-evident really is, in fact, evident to self. I assert, then, blindly to you perhaps, that you are your own evidence for creation.

No, your unfounded assertion was that if X exists, it must have come from something with X. But we know for a fact that's not true. For example, I can take 2 moles of hydrogen and 1 mole of oxygen, spark the mixture, and I will get water (H20). Did the water come from water? No, it came from a hydrogen and oxygen mixture and energy.

You aren't following: You cannot have water without H2O. Reflexive/reflective means if you don't see it, it doesn't exist, or, 'if it doesn't exist, it cannot be.' There is a sense in which a unicorn exists because you and I know exactly what that is. It cannot be in our minds without a conveyance of what such is. The argment then goes that a unicorn, does, in fact exist. When we find a dinosaur fossil that we didn't know existed, it didn't suddenly 'become real.' We tend to think what is real 'must' be tangible. We know God is Spirit.

Ok, at this point you need to define "creation" and "creation science" before we can continue.

I have to get you to understand that a good deal of your mind and understanding make-up is intangible and disconnected from your physical universe, first. If I can get you to realize you are more than the sum of the parts you now see, you'll realize there is something quite a bit more complex than science or any physical observation is able to account for. Intelligence, for instance, is a capacity that requires meaning and purpose. No scientific inquiry can lead you to understand, "understanding." It just exists, as it is, without your ability to but assert it. Get to that point and we'll have MUCH more to talk about.

Yes you can. Humans fly into space and see a global earth all the time.

:nono: It costs hundreds of millions of dollars and most of us are weeded out. I'm too tall, for instance. Perhaps one day (soon?).

]Really? That's your standard? If 90% of an "audience" believes something, it is therefore true? Sheesh.....

It is a genuine observation. I'd call it a fact but my science brother would say it needs more than a couple of papers and research before publishing results. I kind of believe he knows what he's talking about, but I haven't asked him about this particular. I just 'think' that's what he'd suggest...

I admitted no such thing. You need to define "creation" and "creation science" before I agree to anything about either.

I was "created" by my parents.

Yes we can.

Looking VERY forward to my plane, er space ticket
(I think we are talking past one another here on this particular BUT if you have that kind of money, I humbly and gratefully accept)

Then you've simply made an empty assertion that a "god" can be interacted with, while refusing to describe how it can be done.

No. We are talking about a promise of God. It assumes you 'want to find Him.' He assures that He will do His part.

No, but you've given me pretty much what I expected.

Well, if I could get you to understand it...

Why not? Why can't intelligence be something that, while not initially present in the universe, develops over time? We see that with other things, so why not intelligence?

Even components must be pre-existent. You cannot build a car without all the parts BUT the car cannot assemble itself. We recognize that and I understand Darwin intuited that organics don't work the same way. When it comes to intelligence, however, you have to assert it on the basis of itself. It is reflexive. Can you prove you have or are intelligent? Do I have to be intelligent to grasp it, or can you prove it to a monkey?

But that purpose and meaning doesn't have to come from a god. It could easily be something I make up myself.

:nono: You have to have it, even to 'try' and make it up.

Given your obvious profound ignorance of the basics of science, I'll take your recommendations for what they are.

Given to overblown exaggeration. Science isn't this hard. Oh sure, I don't know about genetics and cannot cure inflammation, but I expect you can't either without a recipe book/guidance.

No one has said otherwise.

I believe you are missing the reflexive nature of this. Purpose is innate in us. You didn't just 'make it up' in yourself.

 

[gcthomas]

It is. If you EVER stop yourself and think, you will figure something out. Right now, you are more 'in'-doctrinated than you realize. You are using something else to rule what is true, and it isn't the best ruler for doing so. In this case, your tools are what is in question. What is self-evident really is, in fact, evident to self. I assert, then, blindly to you perhaps, that you are your own evidence for creation.

You aren't following: You cannot have water without H2O. Reflexive/reflective means if you don't see it, it doesn't exist, or, 'if it doesn't exist, it cannot be.' There is a sense in which a unicorn exists because you and I know exactly what that is. It cannot be in our minds without a conveyance of what such is. The argment then goes that a unicorn, does, in fact exist. When we find a dinosaur fossil that we didn't know existed, it didn't suddenly 'become real.' We tend to think what is real 'must' be tangible. We know God is Spirit.



I have to get you to understand that a good deal of your mind and understanding make-up is intangible and disconnected from your physical universe, first. If I can get you to realize you are more than the sum of the parts you now see, you'll realize there is something quite a bit more complex than science or any physical observation is able to account for. Intelligence, for instance, is a capacity that requires meaning and purpose. No scientific inquiry can lead you to understand, "understanding." It just exists, as it is, without your ability to but assert it. Get to that point and we'll have MUCH more to talk about.



:nono: It costs hundreds of millions of dollars and most of us are weeded out. I'm too tall, for instance. Perhaps one day (soon?).



It is a genuine observation. I'd call it a fact but my science brother would say it needs more than a couple of papers and research before publishing results. I kind of believe he knows what he's talking about, but I haven't asked him about this particular. I just 'think' that's what he'd suggest...







Looking VERY forward to my plane, er space ticket
(I think we are talking past one another here on this particular BUT if you have that kind of money, I humbly and gratefully accept)



No. We are talking about a promise of God. It assumes you 'want to find Him.' He assures that He will do His part.



Well, if I could get you to understand it...



Even components must be pre-existent. You cannot build a car without all the parts BUT the car cannot assemble itself. We recognize that and I understand Darwin intuited that organics don't work the same way. When it comes to intelligence, however, you have to assert it on the basis of itself. It is reflexive. Can you prove you have or are intelligent? Do I have to be intelligent to grasp it, or can you prove it to a monkey?


:nono: You have to have it, even to 'try' and make it up.


Given to overblown exaggeration. Science isn't this hard. Oh sure, I don't know about genetics and cannot cure inflammation, but I expect you can't either without a recipe book/guidance.



I believe you are missing the reflexive nature of this. Purpose is innate in us. You didn't just 'make it up' in yourself.

That is a lot of puffery to say effectively nothing.

:carryon:

If you can imagine a unicorn then it exists? That must be a very different meaning of 'exists' than is usually accepted for the English language.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is.

I'm sure you think it is, but that's only meaningful to you. There are people who insist "it's obvious" that the sun orbits a stationary earth, fairies exist, astrology is valid, bigfoot exists, and so on....

Your assertion of "it's obvious" is no more compelling than their's.

I assert, then, blindly to you perhaps, that you are your own evidence for creation.

And I take that for what it is....an empty assertion.

You aren't following: You cannot have water without H2O.

The point went completely over your head. You argued that if X exists, it must have come from something with X. That simply isn't true.

We know God is Spirit.

Again, that's what you believe. You simply asserting your beliefs as fact does not make them so.

I have to get you to understand that a good deal of your mind and understanding make-up is intangible and disconnected from your physical universe, first. If I can get you to realize you are more than the sum of the parts you now see, you'll realize there is something quite a bit more complex than science or any physical observation is able to account for. Intelligence, for instance, is a capacity that requires meaning and purpose. No scientific inquiry can lead you to understand, "understanding." It just exists, as it is, without your ability to but assert it. Get to that point and we'll have MUCH more to talk about.

Total dodge. If you can't define "creation" and "creation science", then whatever claims you make about them are meaningless.

It costs hundreds of millions of dollars and most of us are weeded out. I'm too tall, for instance. Perhaps one day (soon?).

Sheesh....way to miss the point. You act like John Glenn was the only person who ever went into space and personally viewed a global earth, and when he came back he was like "The earth is a globe, trust me". Reality however, is quite a bit different than you depict.

It is a genuine observation.

I'll let the fact that you think 90% of an audience believing something makes it true speak for itself.

No. We are talking about a promise of God. It assumes you 'want to find Him.' He assures that He will do His part.

Then it's false. I've done that and no "god" showed up or otherwise responded.

Even components must be pre-existent.

Now you're backpedaling and admitting that some things that didn't already exist can come into existence from component parts. That's important.

When it comes to intelligence, however, you have to assert it on the basis of itself. It is reflexive. Can you prove you have or are intelligent? Do I have to be intelligent to grasp it, or can you prove it to a monkey?

That depends on what you mean by "intelligence". Are you going to dodge defining your terms yet again?

You have to have it, even to 'try' and make it up.

Another empty assertion.

I believe you are missing the reflexive nature of this. Purpose is innate in us. You didn't just 'make it up' in yourself.

Another baseless assertion.

Sorry Lon, but things don't become true simply by virtue of you saying they are.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is a lot of puffery to say effectively nothing.

:carryon:

If you can imagine a unicorn then it exists? That must be a very different meaning of 'exists' than is usually accepted for the English language.

Obviously all of Lon's positions are true...

...as long as you pre-accept all his assertions as true.

 

[Lon]

That is a lot of puffery to say effectively nothing.

:carryon:

:nono: It says a LOT more than the cursory gloss.

If you can imagine a unicorn then it exists? That must be a very different meaning of 'exists' than is usually accepted for the English language.

Incorrect. There is no tangible 'love' you can test, yet infants will die without it. It is beyond the ken but accepted as real because it is real. You can't 'hold' love. Can't smell it. Can't taste it. Can't see it, can't hear it. You can see actions 'because' of it, but the thing: Love eludes. It is real. You and I both know it is real. I don't have to try to prove it, in point of fact. We all want it, so agree sight unseen that it exists. Anybody can try to argue that it doesn't exist. They would be wrong, whether we could prove it to them or not.

"Intelligence" exists. I cannot prove that. It must be reflexive/reflective truth to stand. In fact, all truth does.

Now: "Why do unicorns exit, if I can't see them?" Concepts are 'real' even if we can't touch them. In this matter, what we are doing is defining without precision. You are correct that "Unicorns don't exist." I am correct to say "Unicorns do exist." Both are contradictory, not because neither of us are true, but because language is imprecise. Whenever we use 'creation' and 'evolution,' they too are imprecise and create problems. Because these imprecisions (as well as other disagreements) cross into values, we argue and fight over them because we are trying to get our use of terms accepted. It often, would be better to use more descriptive words to see what we actually agree or disagree with. Unicorns do exist. You can ask me how, or remember your own science studies: We don't call narwhal unicorns.
We agree that things exist in language and ideas that we believe don't exist in the physical world but we mislabel such to inaccurately say "Unicorns do not exist in real-life." People who are concrete sequential tend to live as if this world is all there is, even if they don't genuinely believe it. They get stuck in such thinking and then become incapable of metaphysics (stuff that exists, beyond physical comprehension and understood as true by the mind). A good number of mathematical equations are metaphysical. Quantum mechanics and physics are of this nature.

Another way: Some people are convinced by one thing, thus their sets of proofs are always the same, whereas another understands a broader world of existence and are able to understand that the previous set of proofs is insufficient to validate other things equally true.

Think of the difference between basic and higher math to get a sufficient analogy. x and n were beyond my ability to grasp as true when I was young. They are 'now' obviously true in mathematical expression but they are randomly assigned symbols that stand for something other than their functional values of sound and reading comprehension in the alphabet.

 

[Lon]

Obviously all of Lon's positions are true...

...as long as you pre-accept all his assertions as true.

:think: Of COURSE that is how logic works! :doh:

 

[Lon]

I'm sure you think it is, but that's only meaningful to you. There are people who insist "it's obvious" that the sun orbits a stationary earth, fairies exist, astrology is valid, bigfoot exists, and so on....

Your assertion of "it's obvious" is no more compelling than their's.

It is. Can you fathom an eternity past? Some scientists cannot and some suggest a 'beginning' to all things. It is ludicrous because metaphysical thinkers know it is merely moving a goal and trying to 'stop' thinking. Something or someone has always existed, and originated all things. That being or thing, is more able to produce other thinking things than the universe itself and to ensure purpose and value in that which is created. Can you 'test' that? No, but we can't test higher math either. We just 'know' it is true. Imagine that: Some mathematicians just 'know' and can't explain to you why something is true, yet they know beyond doubt that that is the way it is.

And I take that for what it is....an empty assertion.

I've heard often those who do not think metaphysically, cannot. I'm not sure that is true, but you are evidence that it might be true.
In a similar fashion, I would simply have to assert to a child that 2x=4 has an answer. To him? Simple assertion. "Empty" assertion. Some kids can never do algebra either. A lack on your part? Yes, but I don't think it has to be this way. Even taking a 'faith' step because you believe your algebra teacher is a step in the right direction, even if you cannot comprehend the reality. It at least accepts the possibility of the reality, and has an interest in it being true, if only for admiration of the teacher.

Scripture says the man without the Spirit cannot accept things from the Spirit as well BUT God says He will be found by those who desire Him. You'd have to ask for the 'ability' to see Him. What I'm offering rather, are 'reasons' for my belief. There are many, I gave you 4 of them.

 

[Jose Fly]

:think: Of COURSE that is how logic works! :doh:

So if you pre-accept that gods don't exist, it is therefore true that gods don't exist. "That is how logic works!"

It is.

I agree. Your assertion that the existence of God is "obvious" is as compelling as a bigfoot hunter's assertion that the existence of bigfoot is "obvious".

Can you fathom an eternity past? Some scientists cannot and some suggest a 'beginning' to all things. It is ludicrous because metaphysical thinkers know it is merely moving a goal and trying to 'stop' thinking. Something or someone has always existed, and originated all things. That being or thing, is more able to produce other thinking things than the universe itself and to ensure purpose and value in that which is created.

This is getting boring. All you're doing is stating your beliefs and expecting me to accept them as true. You obviously wouldn't do that with anything I say, so why should I do that with you?

Can you 'test' that? No, but we can't test higher math either. We just 'know' it is true.

Oh brother....yes, you can demonstrate that higher math is true.

In a similar fashion, I would simply have to assert to a child that 2x=4 has an answer. To him? Simple assertion. "Empty" assertion.

Until someone walks him through the steps that show how to solve the equation and then uses a real-world example to illustrate its accuracy. But like you admitted earlier, we can't do such testing with God.

Scripture says the man without the Spirit cannot accept things from the Spirit as well BUT God says He will be found by those who desire Him. You'd have to ask for the 'ability' to see Him.

Like I said, did that and got nothing. So your claims have been falsified.

What I'm offering rather, are 'reasons' for my belief. There are many, I gave you 4 of them.

If that's the best you can do, I'll let it speak for itself.

 

[Jonahdog]

Yes Jose' Its that simple, Gods word is fact..


everready

Not necessarily

 

[Arthur Brain]

It isn't 'science all around the world.' It is "science" the same all over the world because it is a share discipline, much like math. Science observations are different than math when it comes to things it cannot really test or prove. Nobody can prove what
they were not around to witness. It is extrapolation, best guessing. "A preponderance of evidence" is still and yet, suppositional. Years ahead, no creationist will make a million dollars for discounting any science theory or extrapolation. We all know, implicitly, there is a difference between extrapolation and what we can actually measure and prove.

You've been less than stellar on your last post. It took me a bit by surprise, frankly.



I've been trying to get more information but reading the links I gave and a youtube commentary I didn't repost, it was suggested the government would not allow Christian schools to teach 'creation as fact.' The thing that was purported, and again, I'd love you to set that record straight, was that 'public' and 'free' etc. mean something different in the UK. You, yourself suggested I had no idea what school was like in the UK. It was yet another of those uninviting retorts from the last post. Again, such was a surprise to me, where you and I, I ha d thought, carried a better, polite, and mutual conversation. For whatever part I played, if at all, my apologies. I really don't enjoy crossing you, in particular, at all. -Lon

Lon, all I did was ask you a question to begin with and that's all. There was no dishonesty or ulterior motive behind it and I didn't expect your responses to it in turn. I'm not interested in having a disruptive conversation either so thanks for your response and best just to leave it at that I think.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think that is a bit of a strawman argument. I'm unaware of any who say creationism should be taught as fact. No Christian would want someone who is hostile to the Bible being forced to teach it.

Well it can't be taught as 'fact' in any science class, the same with a 'flat earth' or 'geocentrism'.

What many Christians would like though is that teachers and students have the academic freedom to discuss competing theories....the freedom to discuss strengths and weaknesses of TOE...etc (As long as the curriculum is completed)

The only 'competing theories' are those based in a specific religious belief. That's fine for discussion outside of a science class but not in it.

 

[Lon]

So if you pre-accept that gods don't exist, it is therefore true that gods don't exist. "That is how logic works!"

If you establish the prior as facts. You 'can' ask regarding them.

I agree. Your assertion that the existence of God is "obvious" is as compelling as a bigfoot hunter's assertion that the existence of bigfoot is "obvious".

No, we are talking about creation at this point. See, you don't 'logic' very well. Without judgement, I'd like to help you fix that. Sincerely.
On this point, we are talking about why intelligence equates reflexively, intelligence in the universe.

This is getting boring. All you're doing is stating your beliefs and expecting me to accept them as true. You obviously wouldn't do that with anything I say, so why should I do that with you?

KInda like sitting in a quantum physics class for you, I'd imagine....

Oh brother....yes, you can demonstrate that higher math is true.

Er, it 'seems' you haven't gone very far in math. It is okay, but this is ignorance talking.

Until someone walks him through the steps that show how to solve the equation and then uses a real-world example to illustrate its accuracy. But like you admitted earlier, we can't do such testing with God.

Like all relationships, when someone promises to be there if you meet at such and such....

Like I said, did that and got nothing. So your claims have been falsified.

Interesting. When I showed up, there He was. How long did you wait before you left? Sincerity is rather important on this particular. You didn't falsify nor could you. He found me. That ship has sailed.

If that's the best you can do, I'll let it speak for itself.

Me too. Regardless of your ignorance, it says a LOT more philosophically than you think it does.

 

[6days]

*Well it can't be taught as 'fact' in any science class, the same with a 'flat earth' or 'geocentrism'.

You repeat your strawman argument.*

What many Christians would like though is that teachers and students have the academic freedom to discuss competing theories....the freedom to discuss strengths and weaknesses of TOE...etc (As long as the curriculum is completed)

The only 'competing theories' are those based in a specific religious belief. That's fine for discussion outside of a science class but not in it.

Actually there is a competing 'theory' based in science and logic. *Anything that exhibits complex, functional design, may have been designed. Our universe may have a designer. Surely students should have the freedom to compare competing ideas.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You repeat your strawman argument.*
Actually there is a competing 'theory' based in science and logic. *Anything that exhibits complex, functional design, may have been designed. Our universe may have a designer. Surely students should have the freedom to compare competing ideas.

Considering that evolution in itself doesn't rule out God or a 'designer' then you've actually manufactured a strawman of your own. If it's integral to your own personal belief system that the earth can only be a set amount of years old it's one thing. Plenty of Christians have no problem with an old earth or evolution whatsoever.