Re: OT Myths of Creationism

Dave McNulla wrote:
On May 10, 10:31 pm, Johnny <apte...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dave McNulla wrote:
On May 10, 10:15 am, Johnny <apte...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
$Bill wrote:
Dave McNulla wrote:
nearly all arguments against creationism focus on the failings of the
creationist's arguments. that's because 1) nobody can't prove it
didn't exist, and 2) there is no scientific explanation of the 'start'
because people will ask what happened before that?
When there is no proof that definitively supports or denies an
apparently impossible scenario vs a less dramatic but possible
scenario - why would you choose to believe the part that is
apparently impossible vs the more probable ?
$Bill, my best guess here is that Dave does not grasp the logical
concepts of unfalsifiable vs. falsifiable. His position is very close
to being the long-discredited ontological argument for the existence of
God by St. Anselm, i.e., God so truly exists that we cannot conceive of
Him not existing. Well, it turns out that we can not only conceive of
His non-existence, we can get along very well without Him.
i never gave my position. what position could i give and support on
this discussion? essentially none, there is no proof of either.
evangelicals and scientists modernize their thoughts on a regular
basis. but nobody gets to the start of it all. regardless of which you
believe (or which version of which), you are looking at a big blank at
some point.
dave
That "there is no proof of either" *is* your stated position. But
never mind all that fuss, let me try some reason one more time and leave
it up to you.

H. sapiens has been looking at big blanks since its first member
fell into the bottomless well of his own mind and discovered
imagination. Our species has, by the very nature of its intellect,
relentlessly striven to fill in the blank pages in the Book of
Everything, both those still remaining from the beginning of time itself
to what we know now and from what we know now to the ineffable end of
eternity. What we casually call curiosity seems to have evolved as a
powerful instinct to acquire more and more knowledge as our
self-cognition evolved.

First we tried religion by using supernatural concepts and indelible
ink. More recently we have more and more been trying science by using
observation, experiment, reason, common sense, and a pencil with a big
eraser. Both means have their advocates, and I am optimistic that the
reasonable among us are reasonable enough to recognize which tool is
best for understanding everything.

i never knew it was an either/or thing.


That's not all you don't know about the subject if you never knew that the natural and the supernatural are diametrically opposed and wholly incompatible concepts, one being real and the other being imaginary.

instead of telling me which one you think is better, tell me which one
will solve the puzzle first? that's what the thread is about from what
i can see.



This thread is about recent proofs of the validity and reliability of natural evolution disposing of several common challenges from religionists. And you don't have to see any further than me to know that because I started this thread. Here, in case you missed it:

Johnny wrote:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/21/myths-of-creationism

“A detailed understanding of protistan biology,” Farmer and Habura conclude, “offers scientists and laypersons alike the ability to address current attacks on evolutionary theory, and to refute the claims of [intelligent design] creationists *who insist on invoking supernatural explanations to account for observable phenomena."*


I, and others in this thread, have explained throughout this thread which method of explaining the natural world works best to explain the natural world, and why, and a number of other things. And the last time I told you I also told you that was the last time I was going to tell you. I am not going to keep saying the same thing over and over, in the same words or different ones, just because you keep challenging me over and over to explain what I have already explained over and over.

If you can't figure out the simple common sense fact that what method works best is more than likely to be the method that arrives at viable and valid answers first, then you are either incredibly ignorant or you are just trying to make a pest of yourself by being contrary no matter what for some reason apparently known only to you. Your stubborn ignorance, intentional, feigned, or innocent, of the instinctual intellectual curiosity in the human nature of historical thinking and self-cognition and of the capabilities, methods, viability, and reliability of human science based on that aspect of human nature has become tedious and tiresome, so I am no longer interested in what you have to say in this thread and that's all I have to say to you in this thread.

-30- See you around, fool.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Myths of Creationism
    ... Dave McNulla wrote: ... and 2) there is no scientific explanation of the 'start' ... but nobody gets to the start of it all. ... More recently we have more and more been trying science by using observation, experiment, reason, common sense, and a pencil with a big eraser. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: OT: sea level rise hmmmmm....
    ... You are a continuing example of why scientists work to ... good reason, I believe. ... when wondering about questions posed by web pages on science. ... but to be honest I am not really interested in AGW issues. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... strange analogies and clearly false claims. ... rather clear errors of fact and reason in Morgan's book. ... more potable water. ... > interested in this, and not proper scientists? ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: God, Family, and Country
    ... I recall science replacing God as the place I ... I realized two things about family and country - both had ... reason than to bring further enlightenment and progress to humanity. ... depressed by the fact that other scientists are not willing to ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: For Buzz; The Answer
    ... You realized that my purpose of government being *protecting the ... it's become what Dave is. ... sunuvabitch," nor have you given any reason for government. ... Well, maybe not stupid, just a fool. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)