Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

creationism or evolution
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 33>
Poll Question: which do you believe is right and why
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
12 [16.67%]
47 [65.28%]
13 [18.06%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: creationism or evolution
    Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 01:48
 
Menumorut, you realize you can't write a single letter here without relying on your perceptions (at least sight and touch for a computer? and I'm not entering more complex discussions about the reliability of language, about the assumption your message is coherent and it's understood on the other side of the fence, etc., etc.). So telling me you consider perceptions unreliable, or ideas of any kind, etc. just because they are perceptions or ideas, it's denying yourself as somebody capable to have a coherent and rational discussion, you're denying that you're making arguments here. The philosophy of denial is nice as an intellectual exercise but it ends up in self-undermining once it's taken too seriously.
 
The same applies to the axiom of cause and effect. If there's no such thing as cause and effect, please tell me why have you pressed keys in order to write me a message? Or how can you actually know my reply is caused by yours and we're actually having a discussion? If there's no such thing as cause and effect you must admit any coherence one might see in your replies is a simple coincidence (perhaps an illusion). Your messages do not mean anything, they are arbitrary manifestations with no connection whatsoever to anything at all. Without cause and effect, there's no such thing as sense, meaning, value, perception, understanding. 
 
Your last question on science is so disappointing that I'm wondering what you actually understood from this discussion. But on the other hand it explains a lot of your dogmatism. My advice: start with Socrates, he's the first major epistemologist. 


Edited by Chilbudios - 13-Dec-2007 at 01:51
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419 		  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 05:39

Flying Spaghetti Monster? Anyone?


Ramen, brother.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 07:58
Originally posted by Menumorut

Science, I mean scientists and their adepts, believe that it can explain what and why is happening in the material world. It discovered some rules which until now almost allways applied, but if tomorrow one of these laws or more will cease to apply?

Science and scientists do try to explain what you say but they are aslo aware of the impossibility of an ultimate explanation. Since scientific theories, unlike religious beliefs, must  be confirmed by observations, scientist know that they cannot make an infinitely precise observation or measurement.

Also you realize that common sense is not a reliable tool to explain things. Common sense is telling you that the Earth is flat and that the Universe is euclidian. The need for an initial cause is not a necessity. You turn it into a justification of the existence of a Creator though then the next question is: what created the Creator? Then Janus Rook will jum in and say that God is eternal and has no beginning and no end. Well, that only makes the utility of an ultimate cause as an argument obsolete. Why can't there be eternity without God? Since God doesn't need a cause and is eternal then why would the existence of everything need a cause. Infinity is so large it could even include all the imagined gods of the mankind.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 11:15
and I'm not entering more complex discussions about the reliability of language, about the assumption your message is coherent and it's understood on the other side of the fence, etc., etc.).


You have a 'talent' of not refering to the ideas,but to the some other things.

So telling me you consider perceptions unreliable, or ideas of any kind, etc. just because they are perceptions or ideas, it's denying yourself as somebody capable to have a coherent and rational discussion, you're denying that you're making arguments here.


So, what you want, to assert that my perceptions are real only for being apparently logical in this dialogue? This is nonsense.



The philosophy of denial is nice as an intellectual exercise but it ends up in self-undermining once it's taken too seriously.


Is not an intellectual exercise or a hobby but the only practice of aspiring to the truth. Philosphy is what you are doing, asking me to credit my perceptions.

If there's no such thing as cause and effect, please tell me why have you pressed keys in order to write me a message? Or how can you actually know my reply is caused by yours and we're actually having a discussion?


I didn't say that is not a cause but that the cause is not a material entity. Again, please refer to ideas, not to my 'coherence of behaviour'.


My advice: start with Socrates, he's the first major epistemologist.


The truth cann't be accesed by human efforts. We have to aspire to it, but believing that we can reach it is wrong.



Why can't there be eternity without God? Since God doesn't need a cause and is eternal then why would the existence of everything need a cause. Infinity is so large it could even include all the imagined gods of the mankind.



It should exist a Being that has a sort of existence that is self-suficient. A sort of existence what is radicaly, infinitly superior to the one of the world.

This is a more logical explanation than that of the existence of the world without an initial cause.


Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 11:47
You have a 'talent' of not refering to the ideas,but to the some other things.
It's not my fault you have nothing to argue on the ideas but you just pick on what I'm writing in parantheses. It's not my fault you're virtually illiterate in philosophy and you seek refuge in nihilism, anti-intellectualism and such extremist (and inevitably hypocritical) stances.
 
So, what you want, to assert that my perceptions are real only for being apparently logical in this dialogue? This is nonsense.
It makes me wonder how can you prove the truthness of your sayings? Don't you understand you can't suspend knowledge without suspending also the assertion you have just made?
 
Is not an intellectual exercise or a hobby but the only practice of aspiring to the truth. Philosphy is what you are doing, asking me to credit my perceptions.
You can't aspire to truth if for you there's no such thing as truth, but only illusions and simulations. Of course, I'm doing philosophy here, the problem is you're just trolling by denying everything and maintaining inconsistent positions.
 
I didn't say that is not a cause but that the cause is not a material entity. Again, please refer to ideas, not to my 'coherence of behaviour'.
Your attack at "cause and effect" axiom was not grounded in its materiality. You can't prove there's a cause-effect relation at all.
 
The truth cann't be accesed by human efforts. We have to aspire to it, but believing that we can reach it is wrong.
How can you aspire to something which is not known to exist? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
 
It should exist a Being that has a sort of existence that is self-suficient. A sort of existence what is radicaly, infinitly superior to the one of the world.
No, I say it shouldn't. So how do you estabilish who of us is right and who is wrong?
 
This is a more logical explanation than that of the existence of the world without an initial cause.
If you'd believe in logic, you'd accept scientific knowledge as your best option you have to know something.


Edited by Chilbudios - 13-Dec-2007 at 11:58
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 15:04
It should exist a Being that has a sort of existence that is self-suficient. A sort of existence what is radicaly, infinitly superior to the one of the world.
This is a more logical explanation than that of the existence of the world without an initial cause.
 
The explanation is not more logical, its just an explanation. Logic has nothing to do with it unless you mistake logic with faith.
Also, more or less logical is an inaccurate statement since either you have a logical argument or an illogical one.
More reasonable might be wht you meant and that's what should be discussed.
On terms of logic, both statements are equally self sufficient and complete.
Check it yourself:
  1. Existance has no kind of limits and is immeasurable as a whole.
  2. There is a Being(God) that is self sufficient.

And what's funny is that the two statements are not exclusive. Though I think that no. 1 is true and take it as a principle and no. 2 is yet to be proved. Not to mention that I can say that Existance includes God(s) and still be consistent.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 15:25
Cezar, an explanation is not just a statement. If you say "sun is bright" that doesn't explain anything. To make it explain something you need to put it in a form like "the bright sun causes life on Earth". An explanation must justify, must bring forward some causes, must facilitate understanding. And behind such an explanation are also observations but also logical inferences (without logic we cannot conclude anything, we cannot reason). Therefore it makes sense to talk about logical explanations, about explanations which were found following a valid reasoning on some given premises (observations).
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 15:31
It makes me wonder how can you prove the truthness of your sayings? Don't you understand you can't suspend knowledge without suspending also the assertion you have just made?


The idea is simple: I deny the relevance of our sensations and thoughts but I remain open to other kind of knowledge. I think this is the correct atitude and I am talking about practical ways of searching the truth. You seems to have fixations for appeareances.


How can you aspire to something which is not known to exist? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?


If someone want to be objective, he/she should not reject any posibility, like atheists are doing.



The explanation is not more logical, its just an explanation. Logic has nothing to do with it unless you mistake logic with faith.


I used the word logical with the sense of "more acceptable".



On terms of logic, both statements are equally self sufficient and complete.

Check it yourself:


  1. Existance has no kind of limits and is immeasurable as a whole.

  2. There is a Being(God) that is self sufficient.


We should proceed like a scientist when he/she try to establish the most objective statements. He/she is not using logic so much.





Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 13:32
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Cezar, an explanation is not just a statement. If you say "sun is bright" that doesn't explain anything. To make it explain something you need to put it in a form like "the bright sun causes life on Earth". An explanation must justify, must bring forward some causes, must facilitate understanding. And behind such an explanation are also observations but also logical inferences (without logic we cannot conclude anything, we cannot reason). Therefore it makes sense to talk about logical explanations, about explanations which were found following a valid reasoning on some given premises (observations).
 
I'm sorry Chilbudios for not being very rigurous in my posts but it was a discussion with mainly with my fellowcountryman. Since we share a common language, Romanian, which is richer than English in terms of semantics, me and Menumorut needn't too much explicit English to understand the core of our replys. I'll be more careful in the future.
The basic idea was that a statement is self sufficient. And the discussion was about the "weight" of a statement vs another.
 
According to this and back to the topic, there are two basic statemets:
  1. There is a creator
  2. There is evolution

The problem is that some people see these two as exclusive. As I said before, I don't.

The next step in discussions is the attept to prove one or another, if not both statements. That is to say if they are true or false. And that's another thing, since new statements need to be added to establish that.

Here's some:

  1. there is a cause for everything
  2. everything has a purpose
  3. evolution doesn't explain everything

Now, to build an explanation you need only logic. Observation is what confirms or not the explanation. An explanation can be true, false or undefined. On the other hand, it can be flawed by misusing the logic or misinterpretation of the observation.

The point is that explanations are often self-sufficient though not true. Observing constatly that things fall to the Earth might be explained by "Earth attracts objects". Now, we have a statement that it's not true but in order to establish this we need to extend both the logic inference and the observation. The statement "Earth attracts objects" is good enough for a wide range of purposes. A fisherman, a hunter or a farmer needs no theory of gravity. The statement above is enough explanation for their activity and they don't need further observations.
 
Regarding, our topic, the following statements seem to synthetize the opinions:
1. The Universe was created and is immuable.
2. The Universe was created and is evolving.
3. The Universe is evolving.
I guess that most people agree tha #1 is not confirmed by observation.
#3 is, on the other hand, confirmed by observation.
#2 is more complicated since there are two condition to have observations about.
Since direct observations for creation are not yet available, inferences on current observations are made in order to demonstrate "The Universe was created" as true.
The most encountered is the cause-effect argument which is ussualy shaped like this:
1. there is a cause for everything
2. there is a prime cause
Unfortunately, most times this statements are used in the flawed form "there is a cause for everything so there must be a prime cause".
That, actually means #2<=>#1 or, at least, #1=>2, and that's the point where there are no arguments or observations at hand. First, there is no observation of a prime cause (Big Bang is not named in scientific theoryes as the prime cause but as the point when the known(relatively observable) Universe "began" - we can discuss this later).
Some come with the "objectivity" of observation. Complete objectivity is unachievable, at least until someone gets beyond Heisenberg. Therefore, observation is not an ultimate proof. Both logic and observation are necessary to have a reasonable argument.
Now, about flawed arguments. Those are mostly using negative statements or alike. Here are some:
1. There is no (irefutable) proof of the Creation.
2. There is no Creation.
3. There is no evolution.
4. (The theory of)Evolution is inconsistent.
5. (God)Creator is unprovable(undefinable).
Using these to explain something comes in different ways, like these:
- There is no (irefutable) proof of the Creation therefore there is no Creation. That's flawed since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. "There is no water in this bottle" does not necessarily means "There was and won't ever be water in this bottle"
- There is evolution so there is no creation. That's actually saying that "Creation is" is false. No demonstration based on observation and logic yet.
- There is no Creation so there is evolution. Check above
- There is no evolution. Observations do support "Evolution is" is true.
- God is undefinable but God exists but we can't prove His existence. That's one I like a lot since its a wonderful example of illogical argument used to back up logic statements.
- Evolution is inconsistent so Creation is the explanation. That is illogical too, but the fact is that Evolution is not inconsistent its incomplete. There is a huge difference between those attributes. Observation shows that evolution is incomplete, not that is inconsistent. So is Newton's mechanics. It consistently explain enough things and its confirmed through observation. Yet there are things observations of things that it doesn't explain. That doesn't make it unusable it just makes it limited. So is the theory of evolution now. It's based on current knowledge and it's not an immuable repetition of sir Darwin's work. Actually if he would be alive today he would recognize it. But the basic idea is still his(maybe inspired by Cuvier) and there are no valid arguments against it.
One of the arguments used by radical creationists(I call so the guys that deny evolution) is the emotional ape=>man. That's disimulated instigation to rasism. The next thing they wil come up with will be black=>white. I doubt Homo erectus had had a fair hair and pink skin. The basic message they sent is Ubermensch was, is and will be Ubermensch.
Okay, this post is obviously too long. I guess not many will read it entirely. 
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 22:41
Originally posted by Menumorut

The idea is simple: I deny the relevance of our sensations and thoughts but I remain open to other kind of knowledge. I think this is the correct atitude and I am talking about practical ways of searching the truth. You seems to have fixations for appeareances.
But you have provided no way to reach the truth. And as I see it, ignoring the relevance of our sensations and our thoughts, what actually is left to be practical?
 
If someone want to be objective, he/she should not reject any posibility, like atheists are doing.
Not all atheists do that.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Cezar

The basic idea was that a statement is self sufficient.
I'm not sure what you mean here. In a "classical" way of knowing, I'd say only axioms are self-sufficient. 
 
  1. there is a cause for everything
  2. everything has a purpose
  3. evolution doesn't explain everything

Now, to build an explanation you need only logic. Observation is what confirms or not the explanation. An explanation can be true, false or undefined. On the other hand, it can be flawed by misusing the logic or misinterpretation of the observation.

I guess I see what you mean yet  I disagree. In the largest semantical circle I can think of right now, explanation might be synonymous with understanding. Now, depending from individual to individual, from system to system, such statements may provide understanding or not. And ironically enough, in your next example with Earth's gravity, the statement "Earth attracts objects" is formed based on observation. So it was first observation, then a logical inferrence (induction = generalization), then the statement. It seems to me that "All X are Y" type of statements are the end of an inductive process based on several particular cases which are eventually observations (perceptions). Of course, some may simply believe in them without having no justification at all (not a single example!), but that's another discussion - what beliefs must be justified and why?

I guess I agree with some arguments you've made but I'm not sure I understand what are you pointing at.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Dec-2007 at 23:37


But you have provided no way to reach the truth. And as I see it, ignoring the relevance of our sensations and our thoughts, what actually is left to be practical?


Not any method is practical for acceding to the truth. This is too why the science is wrong. But we should remain open to the possible intervention of a possible Supreme Being.



Not all atheists do that.


Than they are no more atheists.



Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 00:26

Ok, maybe I start to understand something from your last two replies. When you write "not any method is practical ..." it happens you actually mean "there's no practical method..."? Well, then the discussion did not progress a bit. Denying knowledge cannot have any other end but the defeat of the argument which brought the denial in the first place. "Every statement is wrong" is wrong by definition.

Plus, if there's no practical way to acced to truth, how do you know a Supreme Being does actually exist?


Edited by Chilbudios - 18-Dec-2007 at 00:44
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 00:47
I don't deny knowledge but fake knowledge.

Every statement is wrong because the truth cann't be comprised in statements. The idea that truth can be comprised in statements is a human prejudice, born from that we are used to think and believe that the material world is the principle of existence (and the phenomena of this world truly can be comprised in statements).

I sayed a possible Supreme Being.

Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 09:28

Menumorut, it's not possible to discuss with someone lacking an attribute, we humans in our fake ways, call it intelligence. If every statement is wrong, everything you have written (said, thought, also everything I or anyone else has) is wrong. Thus, you're wrong! Wink 

I have asked you several times about what "true" knowledge is, but all I got was a rant on how science is wrong and everything is wrong.
 
The last sentence simply begs the question.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 12:30
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by Cezar

The basic idea was that a statement is self sufficient.
I'm not sure what you mean here. In a "classical" way of knowing, I'd say only axioms are self-sufficient.
Actually any predicate is self sufficient. It means it doesn't need any suplimentary determinant. The "value" of the statement is another thing. Axiom's value is defined while derived statements are demonstrated.  
  1. there is a cause for everything
  2. everything has a purpose
  3. evolution doesn't explain everything

Now, to build an explanation you need only logic. Observation is what confirms or not the explanation. An explanation can be true, false or undefined. On the other hand, it can be flawed by misusing the logic or misinterpretation of the observation.

I guess I see what you mean yet  I disagree. In the largest semantical circle I can think of right now, explanation might be synonymous with understanding. Now, depending from individual to individual, from system to system, such statements may provide understanding or not. And ironically enough, in your next example with Earth's gravity, the statement "Earth attracts objects" is formed based on observation. So it was first observation, then a logical inferrence (induction = generalization), then the statement. It seems to me that "All X are Y" type of statements are the end of an inductive process based on several particular cases which are eventually observations (perceptions). Of course, some may simply believe in them without having no justification at all (not a single example!), but that's another discussion - what beliefs must be justified and why?

I guess I agree with some arguments you've made but I'm not sure I understand what are you pointing at.
[/QUOTE]
I'm pointing at the fact that statements like evolution = ~creation are to be demonstrated. Scientific method or not.
The topic is "creationism or evolution". I will reformulate it in two logical ways:
A. ("Creationism is" OR "Evolution is")
B. ("Creationism is" XOR "Evolution is")
A is true if: {"Creationsim is" is true, "Evolutionism is" is true}, {"Creationsim is" is false, "Evolutionism is" is true}, {"Creationsim is" is true, "Evolutionism is" is false}
B is true if {"Creationsim is" is false, "Evolutionism is" is true}, {"Creationsim is" is true, "Evolutionism is" is false}
 
People seem to only focus on B. That, in my opinion makes it for ~creation since evolution is too well argumented.
I think A, with the larger content it implies is better. Of course, if you change it into "Creationism is" AND "Evolution is" you might start from this to demonstrate Intelligent Design, but that's another story.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 12:58
Originally posted by Cezar

Actually any predicate is self sufficient. It means it doesn't need any suplimentary determinant. The "value" of the statement is another thing. Axiom's value is defined while derived statements are demonstrated. 
What is "determinant"? The way I see it everything is determined one way or another. "Sun" is determined by our perception of a "real sun" which we build based on our perception of the outside world. So any blunt statemtent about the sun is according to you not self-sufficient (though it relies on a predicate), because it needs supplementary determinations in order to be understood.

I'm pointing at the fact that statements like evolution = ~creation are to be demonstrated.
All statements need to be demonstrated including this one. The thing is what kind of demonstration do we expect?

Creationism can refer both to Creation and Intelligent Design (in another words a theory which competes with evolutionism, a theory which among others states that evolutionism is false), and the thread addressed (at least initially) the latter meaning. Which means is about a logical "xor". Another option would be that no theory is correct (which seems is the path Menumorut walks on, but in a rather extreme way).



Edited by Chilbudios - 18-Dec-2007 at 13:09
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526 		  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 15:11
If the scientists and science are right and "some superior power" does not exist I pray for the safety of all of us. If "some superior power" exist than I pray for the safety of all of us. In the first case we are doomed: war will kill us all as it will science. In the second case we are damned: If He decide everything this mean my whole life is just His planning - no free will(or He has abandoned us so we are doomed again).

Nothing what looks is. And nothing what is, was. And perhaps nothing what is will be. The world is changing: in the past there was a flat Earth, today is spherical or what ever. Probably with a future technology it will be a square. Some centuries ago we(Newton) discovered gravity - for some centuries maybe they will discover some sort of hyperbolic-dimensional space which will be something(not important what) that will change our whole life. And this is a complicated discussion since there are two "factions": the believers which do not need to prove anything and the scientist which is trying to prove things. Which is right? The one who claims God created everything?-demonstrate this to scientist. Or maybe the scientist which the proven thing are valid?- But valid to whom?
So were we evolved from monkeys or have we been created by some "superior power"? No one can demonstrate this- only theories or believes.


Edited by Illirac - 18-Dec-2007 at 15:12
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 15:21
Sorry, I missused the words of English. Determinant=specifications. A predicate is complete by itself. "Sun is bright" is a predicate and needs no suplimentary definitions if, off course, sun and bright have been predefined either axiomatically or otherwise. A predicate is complete and therefore is self sufficient. The parts of the predicate are another thing.
 
All statements need to be demonstrated? That might be right but what about the axioms? You cannot demonstrate it unless you create another which you cannot demonstrate and so on....
Let's say that we need to demonstrate statements we made (you and me, that is) while some other people don't need that.
"Why?" is self spawning. Oh Censored!!! I just stated something that looks like an axiom.
For some, Creation or Intelligent Design are enough because they concord with their beliefs. Therefore, other explanations or possibilities are rejected. Unfortunately, I don't think such an approach is adequate but I must accept their "explanations" as possible. Which eventually turns into an apparent paradox: "I think everything is possible therefore I think Creation is posssible therefore evolution is not possible therefore I think that something is not possible therefore I don't think everything is possible". Since I'm limited in my existance by consistency I must turn this into something consistent. That only works if creation doesn't exclude evolution since evolution, both in theory and observation, is consistent while creation is... not yet thouroughly theoriticized. 
I would call Intelligent Design a flawed theory since it bases itself on Creation and is used to demonstrate it. 
Now, if "Creation is" is an "axiom", why does it leed to ~"evolution is"?
I don't think it does but there seem to be a lot who think different.
That's why I didn't actually vote since I don't see the necessity of the exclusion.
Maybe Menumorut means no theory is consistent, though I think he rather says that no theory is complete. Maybe he will jump in and make it more clear.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211 		  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 15:26
Originally posted by Illirac

If the scientists and science are right and "some superior power" does not exist I pray for the safety of all of us. If "some superior power" exist than I pray for the safety of all of us.
To whom? Santa? Why praying? From what you say we are in a desperate state because we (don't) realize that we are of no significance. Need a rope and soap?
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526 		  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Dec-2007 at 16:22
Originally posted by Cezar

Originally posted by Illirac

If the scientists and science are right and "some superior power" does not exist I pray for the safety of all of us. If "some superior power" exist than I pray for the safety of all of us.
To whom? Santa? Why praying? From what you say we are in a desperate state because we (don't) realize that we are of no significance. Need a rope and soap?



No, I'm just a pessimist...
For the question why praying I answer: why not?


Edited by Illirac - 18-Dec-2007 at 16:24
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 33>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.