News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Homo Naledi Versus Creationism

Started by stromboli, October 05, 2015, 12:40:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hrdlr110

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 01:28:02 AM
Nope. I agree with evolution to an extent and creation to an extent. They work quite well together if one actually looks at the ramifications of the cohesion of the two. Why can't you agree that some form of creation is plausible as everything can not start from nothing in itself.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

"Ramifications of the cohesion of the two" ..........of course, why didn't I think of that? And what would I be looking for specifically that will allow me to determine that they work quite well together? Lead me to your evidence please, because it's evidently not so evident.
Q for theists; how can there be freewill and miracles? And, how can prayer exist in an environment as regimented as "gods plan"?

"I'm a polyatheist, there are many gods I don't believe in." - Dan Fouts

popsthebuilder

Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 10, 2015, 02:51:31 AM
"Ramifications of the cohesion of the two" ..........of course, why didn't I think of that? And what would I be looking for specifically that will allow me to determine that they work quite well together? Lead me to your evidence please, because it's evidently not so evident.
It's not that I necessarily have evidence for creation but what I know that had been shown to me. The chicken was before the egg, though. Again, why do you say they don't work together.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


popsthebuilder

Is there evidence that they don't work together?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


hrdlr110

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 03:02:45 AM
It's not that I necessarily have evidence for creation but........

This is when I stopped reading, can you guess why? Come on back when you do mate!
Q for theists; how can there be freewill and miracles? And, how can prayer exist in an environment as regimented as "gods plan"?

"I'm a polyatheist, there are many gods I don't believe in." - Dan Fouts

popsthebuilder

Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 10, 2015, 03:07:14 AM
This is when I stopped reading, can you guess why? Come on back when you do mate!
Evolutionists don't have evidence to refute the big bang do they? So what is your point. You can in no way refute that everything can indeed come from nothing alone which in itself is an oxymoron. I don't have a problem with evolution. You know why? Because it works with creation. You know what evolution doesn't work with? Absolute nothing. Utter vacuum. Void. Nothing can start from nothing, but nothing else can. Do you understand that? Something was added to void to create everything. What put that something in to the vacuum is God. This has taken roughly 6 eons.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


hrdlr110

So let me get this straight, nothing can come from nothing, so god? And it would appear that we're now on to infinite regress! If you say nothing, I'm going to be required by your own rule to include your god. Checkmate!
Q for theists; how can there be freewill and miracles? And, how can prayer exist in an environment as regimented as "gods plan"?

"I'm a polyatheist, there are many gods I don't believe in." - Dan Fouts

SGOS

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 03:03:13 AM
Is there evidence that they don't work together?

Good Grief!  You can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist, so he probably does. Right?

popsthebuilder

Quote from: hrdlr110 on October 10, 2015, 03:24:55 AM
So let me get this straight, nothing can come from nothing, so god? And it would appear that we're now on to infinite regress! If you say nothing, I'm going to be required by your own rule to include your god. Checkmate!
I'm sorry, I can't understand what it is you were trying to say. Could you word it differently? Thanks.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


popsthebuilder

Quote from: SGOS on October 10, 2015, 05:53:48 AM
Good Grief!  You can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist, so he probably does. Right?
Big foot doesn't really connect all partial functioning hypotheses into a single, coherent, all encompassing theory that can benefit all existence for sake of existence as we know it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


Mike Cl

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 01:28:02 AM
Nope. I agree with evolution to an extent and creation to an extent. They work quite well together if one actually looks at the ramifications of the cohesion of the two. Why can't you agree that some form of creation is plausible as everything can not start from nothing in itself.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
What language are you typing in?  Is that supposed to be English?  What the fuck does it mean?  How can you have a discussion when you can even write coherently?  You are strong?  What a laugh.  You may not be dumb, buy you are truly ignorant and willfully so.  And I am beginning to think you are stupid, as well--willfully so.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

josephpalazzo

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 03:18:39 AM
Evolutionists don't have evidence to refute the big bang do they?



My guess is that you never pass a course in physics, nor in biology, otherwise you would never have made a fucking asshole ignorant statement like this one. Get yourself an education, I mean, outside of reading the idiotic bible.

popsthebuilder

Quote from: josephpalazzo on October 10, 2015, 09:45:28 AM
My guess is that you never pass a course in physics, nor in biology, otherwise you would never have made a fucking asshole ignorant statement like this one. Get yourself an education, I mean, outside of reading the idiotic bible.
Answer the question instead of dancing around it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.


Mike Cl

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 10:06:37 AM
Answer the question instead of dancing around it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.
Good advice.  Why don't you take it?  Oh, I keep forgetting--you can't think.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

SGOS

Quote from: popsthebuilder on October 10, 2015, 09:37:40 AM
Big foot doesn't really connect all partial functioning hypotheses into a single, coherent, all encompassing theory that can benefit all existence for sake of existence as we know it.

Since you bring that up, if that's the criteria at stake, Bigfoot, as answer to a unifying theory, is no worse than any god did it claim.  And even if creation was not controlled by Bigfoot, doesn't translate into, "Therefore, God."  It's called the argument from ignorance, and it's a well known fallacy used by Christians and creationists.  It follows the basic format of, "You can't explain that, therefore God did it," or even better, "No one knows everything, therefore the things we don't understand, must be God."  Theists love this argument because they don't understand the logic that makes it invalid.  Stupid people also like it, because well, they're stupid.  Arguments from ignorance are being constantly invalidated.  It was once thought thunder had to be caused by Thor.  Well, we didn't know the real reason, so it seemed like a good argument, but then one day we did know the cause of thunder, and we could no longer fall back on our ignorance to explain Thor, and illogical people are still using the argument from ignorance today.  You would think that after 4000 years of watching arguments from ignorance get invalidated, people would stop using them, but they are drawn to that fallacy like bees to pollen.  Use it in this forum and people will simply disregard you.  We don't care about what you don't know.  It doesn't explain anything.

popsthebuilder

Quote from: SGOS on October 10, 2015, 10:57:03 AM
Since you bring that up, if that's the criteria at stake, Bigfoot, as answer to a unifying theory, is no worse than any god did it claim.  And even if creation was not controlled by Bigfoot, doesn't translate into, "Therefore, God."  It's called the argument from ignorance, and it's a well known fallacy used by Christians and creationists.  It follows the basic format of, "You can't explain that, therefore God did it," or even better, "No one knows everything, therefore the things we don't understand, must be God."  Theists love this argument because they don't understand the logic that makes it invalid.  Stupid people also like it, because well, they're stupid.  Arguments from ignorance are being constantly invalidated.  It was once thought thunder had to be caused by Thor.  Well, we didn't know the real reason, so it seemed like a good argument, but then one day we did know the cause of thunder, and we could no longer fall back on our ignorance to explain Thor, and illogical people are still using the argument from ignorance today.  You would think that after 4000 years of watching arguments from ignorance get invalidated, people would stop using them, but they are drawn to that fallacy like bees to pollen.  Use it in this forum and people will simply disregard you.  We don't care about what you don't know.  It doesn't explain anything.
Likewise. What I know has been taught for over four thousand years. I never said we don't know so God. That would be you assuming things. By the way it seems that you are stating "we don't know so not God" the biggest difference is that your claims are wholly unfounded where as mine are backed by history even before written word, and recently backed by science as well. So maybe it wouldn't hurt if everyone could be a little more opened minded about things they aren't certain of. Just a suggestion.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.