|
Are humans.. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Logic preceeds evidence. |
how can you prove logic is true without evidence to support your conclusion? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
how can you prove logic is true without evidence to support your conclusion? |
Easy... he doesn't. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I think if more women were in charge of running the countries, then yes, peace is achievable. Men are often creatures of war. Women simply like to adapt, while men are never satisfied.
My opinion, of course. But look at all the wars, conflict - male ego striving for satisfaction and control. Nationalist fervour, feeling powerful.
Jeez, this is going to be a continuation of that other thread, aint it ... :stongue: |
You're joking right? A hypothetical scenario. Two countries that really dont like each other. Both headed by women. Said two women come for a meeting to discuss something or other and they are accidentally wearing the same dress and to top it off they are both PMSing really hard. dude, nukes be flying before you can say bitchez please.
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
how can you prove logic is true without evidence to support your conclusion? |
 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by yukii
lebez- you live in DC? |
Yeah. I wasn't that close to the Museum, but I think every police vehicle in DC was on alert for hours afterward. Saw them rushing to and fro all the way through the evening rush hour, especially near the Mall and the White House.
edit: I do work in between the museum and the hospital they were taken to; that could explain the increase in police traffic. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
My Religion is the religion of truth. We believe in a Creator who created, owns, sustains and directs and defines everything. If you want to talk about the Creator we can. I don't need to use any religious book to do so. Because the proof is purely a logical one. |
Hmmmm... you believe in the existence of a creator due to logical deduction; however, not in evolution. This seems somewhat at odds to me... if one were to examine all the evidence regarding evolution and attempt to reconcile that with their belief in the creator wouldn't the most logical deduction be that evolution is the process by which the creator creates rather then evolution is bull? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| To answer the OP... humans are very capable of peace; however, peace would require that we divest ourselves of any desire to have status or resources that are greater then those possessed by any other individual, as inequality will inevitably lead to conflict. Interestingly, this drive to be better then others is one of the most important motivators driving our progress as a species; subsequently, it seems the price of peace would be stagnation, which seems to be very much contrary to our nature. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
how can you prove logic is true without evidence to support your conclusion? |
You don't have to prove logic, that is the point. The burdon of proof is on the statement that canniot be proven with logic. This is logic 101.
If logic dictates a thing must be true. Then there is no need for evidence to support its truth.
The daughter cannot give birth to her mother, this statement is true, based on logical deduction alone, and it requires no evidence what so ever to be true. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Hmmmm... you believe in the existence of a creator due to logical deduction; however, not in evolution. This seems somewhat at odds to me... if one were to examine all the evidence regarding evolution and attempt to reconcile that with their belief in the creator wouldn't the most logical deduction be that evolution is the process by which the creator creates rather then evolution is bull? |
There isn't any evidence to show speciation occurs. There is however mounds of evidence to show that animals, life, all obejcts, alive or dead, change because of their environment. But there is hardly any evidence to show that a rock can turn into a plant, a plant can turn into an animal, or an animal can turn into a human.
No one would deny that things changes based on its environment, but the idea that objects morph into a completely different type is pretty farfetched. Rocks don't turn into humans, no matter how many years you give them to do it. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
There isn't any evidence to show speciation occurs. There is however mounds of evidence to show that animals, life, all obejcts, alive or dead, change because of their environment. |
What? There's a proponderance of evidence that shows a rather clear evolution from Australopithecus to Homo-Sapien-Sapien and equally clear paths for numerous other species.
| quote: | | But there is hardly any evidence to show that a rock can turn into a plant, |
Your argument regarding a rock turning into a human is pure folly as rocks are not alive. This also shows you don't really understand the issue, as no one is arguing that a rock evolves as does living organisms.
| quote: | | a plant can turn into an animal, |
Further evidence that you don't even understand what you're talking about, as evolutionary theory would indicate that plants and animals have common ancestry; not that one transitions into the other.
| quote: | | or an animal can turn into a human. |
Notwithstanding the fact that humans are animals this is simply incorrect... as I stated before there is a proponderance of evidence that the Homo genus evolved from the Australopithecus genus.
| quote: | | No one would deny that things changes based on its environment, but the idea that objects morph into a completely different type is pretty farfetched. Rocks don't turn into humans, no matter how many years you give them to do it. |
You obviously don't have even an inkling of a clue as to what evolutionary theory states.
Despite your rhetoric you still have not even begun to explain why it is not logical to conclude that evolution is a process born of the creator. Honestly, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive; logic does allow for both. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Rocks don't turn into humans, no matter how many years you give them to do it. |
wow. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Evolutionary Theory states that all life started with carbon [a mineral, rock] and hydrogen and oxygen [water].
Then it says that this mixture turned into a goo of single celled organisms.
Then it claims that it began to mutate into organisms with multiple cells [plants, algea, etc etc]
Then it suggests that some of this alge and other primitive life forms evolved into a fish like creature [animals]
Then it states that some of those fishy things turned into reptiles, which truned into mamals which turned into apes which turned into humans.
And the theory states that is how humans came to be.
--
That is evolutionary theory as described by the scholars in the field. [ie, I'm not going by what you say it is, if you say otherwise, then your not talking about evolutionary theory, you are talking about something else]
And as I said there is no evidence of a type changing into another type. There are mountains of speculations based only on the fact that living things have similar attributes.
You don't accept a theory as reality untill you have emperical proof that it is that way. If you don't have that proof, then its just another theory.
Its the same when you have a bunch of guys watching a magic show, they all have their theory of how the trick is preformend. But none of them can prove it. So you take their word with a grain of salt. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
that is an incredibly oversimplification and filled with inaccuracies (i.e. carbon is an element not a rock, evolutionary theory does not argue humans evolved from apes, you suggest a quick evolution... that's not what the theory argues, etc.). Seriously, you're really showing you haven't the foggiest idea what you are arguing against; subsequently, you're showing that there are vast holes in your logic, which are born of ignorance. How in the creator's name do you expect anyone to accept your logic with such gaping holes?
Also, you've still not explained why it is not more logical to deduce evolution to be a process of your creator rather then a falsehood.
Additionally; is this that dude that argued his experience shipping meat into Caribbean islands put him on equal grounds with an engineer on matters of physics in the 9/11 hoax thread? |
|
|
|
|
