Is evolution hanging on ?

[Xarog]

Nonsense. You are using a philosophical construct to support idiocy. I can prove humans were directly involved in the evolution of this phrase. I can therefore quite easily state that an unknown, unproven and quite frankly ludicrous deity was not involved with no fear of contradiction.

Argument from ignorance, thy hath been invoked by Splinter.

Unless you can show that you can speak meaningfully about what transpired before the big bang, it's safe to say you're talking out your arse if you lay claim to knowing how we got here enough to rule any possibility out.

The onus is on you, Mr. ipse dixit

Nope.

 

[Splinter]

Argument from ignorance, thy hath been invoked by Splinter.

Unless you can show that you can speak meaningfully about what transpired before the big bang, it's safe to say you're talking out your arse if you lay claim to knowing how we got here enough to rule any possibility out.


Nope.

Umm, the only rectum spewing forth is yours old chap. Prove me wrong

By the way, answer my question please.

Edit: need to get back to work. Not all of us are supported by their parents in middle age.

 

[Xarog]

Umm, the only rectum spewing forth is yours old chap. Prove me wrong

By the way, answer my question please.

Edit: need to get back to work. Not all of us are supported by their parents in middle age.

See, there you go again with statements that have no relationship to reality.

Tell me, how ****ed is your life that you have to get on the internet and do this as your only source of fun?

 

[Sodan]

Well, if you can't prove it's the truth, how do you know it's the truth?

It is possible to achieve something without being able to prove it, the same way it is possible for Pluto to have existed before you could prove it.

Bobbin is talking about the possibility of an event (the achievement of absolute truth), or rather, he is speaking about having proof of the impossibility of this event. I'd like to know what this proof is.

The most simple way I can try describing it is by recognizing that everything you observe (Even via instrumentation) must first be interpreted by your brain by its own process of rationalizing. Thus you are always, ALWAYS, separating the truth/event observed with your interpretation of it. That isn't to say your interpretation can't be 99.99% accurate - but it can never be 100% as it is not the event itself.

It seems like you are saying that absolute truth cannot exist outside of human observations/interpretations?
If so, what proof do you have for that?
If not, then you haven't provided any proof that absolute truth is impossible to achieve, only that it is mighty difficult to prove.

 

[Sodan]

Hey guys, how do I ignore posts from a particular poster? I won't mention names, but jislaaik, someone has come into this thread and added absolutely no value to the discussion, while bloating the thread with 2+ pages off hot air. I could go read the weak jokes in the You magazine if I felt I had a few minutes of my I life I really didn't want.

 

[Xarog]

It is possible to achieve something without being able to prove it, the same way it is possible for Pluto to have existed before you could prove it.

Bobbin is talking about the possibility of an event (the achievement of absolute truth), or rather, he is speaking about having proof of the impossibility of this event. I'd like to know what this proof is.

The proof is that the absolute truth is absolutely true and thus impossible to doubt. The reality is that everything is open to doubt, and that all truth statements are contingent upon there being no errors among the assumptions needed to be held axiomatically true.

If all judgements are subjective in this sense, then it is simply wrong to speak of an absolute truth, because no such thing could possibly exist.

 

[Splinter]

See, there you go again with statements that have no relationship to reality.

Tell me, how ****ed is your life that you have to get on the internet and do this as your only source of fun?

Hey, just answer the question. Why do you keep on avoiding it?

 

[Splinter]

Hey guys, how do I ignore posts from a particular poster? I won't mention names, but jislaaik, someone has come into this thread and added absolutely no value to the discussion, while bloating the thread with 2+ pages off hot air. I could go read the weak jokes in the You magazine if I felt I had a few minutes of my I life I really didn't want.

Go into User CP at top right of your page; in "my account" on left hand side will have options to maintain ignore list.

 

[falcon786]

:crylaugh:

Trust some moron to turn this into a religious discussion.

The irony of you calling him a moron,firstly the OP clearly implied this whole discussion in a religious context,if you couldn't see that his conclusion was creationism then you're really not good at this debate thing!

Secondly,Wayfarer has a much more solid foundation and deeper knowledge and understanding of evolution than you have ever demonstrated on this forum yet you proceed to call him a moron.:crylaugh:

Gravity also doesn't need God to work.

Is the theory of gravity also part of "atheistic religion"?

Actually you're way of the mark here,we as humans know how gravity works but we don't know why it works at all.There is no reasonable explanation as to what causes this force between two objects,we know it's a result of space time rather than an actual force but the "WHY" part we just have no idea about.

It could even be GOD or maybe we will find some explanation in the future but you definitely cannot rule out that Gravity doesn't need GOD to work right now with our current knowledge.

Another thing, atheism is not a religion.

Atheists would do well to remember this.

Some seem to want to turn it into a religion and use science as their donkey to do their bidding.

talking about your own paradigm, where is your reply to my question about all the virgins?

Thread derailing again as usual I see.

Hey guys, how do I ignore posts from a particular poster? I won't mention names, but jislaaik, someone has come into this thread and added absolutely no value to the discussion, while bloating the thread with 2+ pages off hot air. I could go read the weak jokes in the You magazine if I felt I had a few minutes of my I life I really didn't want.

He has done this in several threads recently,very annoying and it kills the hope of any proper civil debate going on with the amount of crap he spews forth.Like verbal diarrhea.

 

[Xarog]

He has done this in several threads recently,very annoying and it kills the hope of any proper civil debate going on with the amount of crap he spews forth.Like verbal diarrhea.

Ya, I apologise for feeding him.

 

[Ho3n3r]

The irony of you calling him a moron,firstly the OP clearly implied this whole discussion in a religious context,if you couldn't see that his conclusion was creationism then you're really not good at this debate thing!

Secondly,Wayfarer has a much more solid foundation and deeper knowledge and understanding of evolution than you have ever demonstrated on this forum yet you proceed to call him a moron.:crylaugh:

:crylaugh: His hogwash based on a fairy tale is a 'solid foundation'? I think you need to go see a doctor.

 

[Xarog]

:crylaugh: His hogwash based on a fairy tale is a 'solid foundation'? I think you need to go see a doctor.

What Falcon786 is saying is that Wayfarer actually has an appreciation for/understanding of the theory of evolution from an academic standpoint.

And he's right in that you could probably learn a thing or two from Wayfarer.

 

[Ho3n3r]

What Falcon786 is saying is that Wayfarer actually has an appreciation for/understanding of the theory of evolution from an academic standpoint.

And he's right in that you could probably learn a thing or two from Wayfarer.

Based on?

You know what, never mind. I just cannot take a viewpoint which has nothing to be based on, except a book, very seriously at all. Might as well believe Harry Potter created it all.

There's nothing academic about it, it's pure lunacy.

 

[Xarog]

Based on?

You know what, never mind. I just cannot take a viewpoint which has nothing to be based on, except a book, very seriously at all. Might as well believe Harry Potter created it all.

There's nothing academic about it, it's pure lunacy.

Sigh. Did you not read what Wayfarer said? You are totally misinterpreting his words; look specifically at the posts he addressed to OrbitalDawn. Don't take what he said so literally.

 

[Ho3n3r]

Sigh. Did you not read what Wayfarer said? You are totally misinterpreting his words; look specifically at the posts he addressed to OrbitalDawn. Don't take what he said so literally.

I was referring to his reply to my reply, which falcon so nicely tried to ridicule. Didn't even read his post to OrbitalDawn, as it has nothing to do with the chain of replies I was referring to.

 

[Bobbin]

It is possible to achieve something without being able to prove it, the same way it is possible for Pluto to have existed before you could prove it.

Bobbin is talking about the possibility of an event (the achievement of absolute truth), or rather, he is speaking about having proof of the impossibility of this event. I'd like to know what this proof is.




It seems like you are saying that absolute truth cannot exist outside of human observations/interpretations?
If so, what proof do you have for that?
If not, then you haven't provided any proof that absolute truth is impossible to achieve, only that it is mighty difficult to prove.

I'm quite comfortable in there being an absolute truth out there. But I also believe it would be impossible to prove. So we can never be certain, and honest, of the "truths" we impose. It gives a very open minded spin on things.

But again I say to others not to try find the truth. Just try to align with what proves useful (Which I'm happy to discuss and try to define).

Observation, verification and consistency are still some of the basic tenets of faith in my book as these are useful attributes I depend on to stay alive and advance. Without these I would simply fail to live - so why should these standards drop when my needs are at a higher level? I really don't care if there is a creator behind all of it unless that fact somehow proves useful or relevant to me - which to date hasn't really done anything except complicate life.

 

[Splinter]

He has done this in several threads recently,very annoying and it kills the hope of any proper civil debate going on with the amount of crap he spews forth.Like verbal diarrhea.

You mean like when you got things horribly wrong in that other thread?

 

[Splinter]

Ya, I apologise for feeding him.

So you are going to use that as an excuse to avoid my question?

 

[Xarog]

I'm quite comfortable in there being an absolute truth out there. But I also believe it would be impossible to prove. So we can never be certain, and honest, of the "truths" we impose. It gives a very open minded spin on things.

But again I say to others not to try find the truth. Just try to align with what proves useful (Which I'm happy to discuss and try to define).

Observation, verification and consistency are still some of the basic tenets of faith in my book as these are useful attributes I depend on to stay alive and advance. Without these I would simply fail to live - so why should these standards drop when my needs are at a higher level? I really don't care if there is a creator behind all of it unless that fact somehow proves useful or relevant to me - which to date hasn't really done anything except complicate life.

Well said.

 

[Xarog]

I was referring to his reply to my reply, which falcon so nicely tried to ridicule. Didn't even read his post to OrbitalDawn, as it has nothing to do with the chain of replies I was referring to.

It does in that he explicitly talks about your post as part of his dialogue with OD. That's why I think you should read it, because I honestly think you misunderstood him.