Etu thinks the world is a "pentagram". (j/k) lol
If you don't like what I say, you can
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLqsfwRvYtU
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLqsfwRvYtU
This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.
Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace
PaperDog wrote:Well Mike, World Class scholars such as Stephan Hawking, who spent quite a bit of his genius mind exploring the issue. Then there is just about every philosopher since Socrates/Plato, who has respectively, in their own capacities, explored the issue... Then, pretty much every professor of Physics, (in pretty much every reputable university in the world) and then of course, the fabulous Wikipedia
I acknowledge that gravity exists, but I don't necessarily 'believe" in it.
As for Flat -Earthers, I'm not one of them because I am thoroughly convinced that the Earth is an octagon
gtZip wrote:Mike Nobody wrote:gtZip wrote:Evolutionists, explain how the behaviour of Lemmings fits in with the idea of adapting and evolving to survive.
Creationists, explain Lemmings.
Not EVERY mutation is necessarily beneficial to survival.
Like cancer.
Everything alive now is the surviving offspring of it's predecessors.
I believe that about 90% of all species that ever lived are now extinct.
Someone could look that up.
But, I think it's about right.
I thought Darwin's main premise was "this is how things get better"?
Thus, the 'evolving' part of evolution.
Nay?
Mike Nobody wrote:PaperDog wrote:Well Mike, World Class scholars such as Stephan Hawking, who spent quite a bit of his genius mind exploring the issue. Then there is just about every philosopher since Socrates/Plato, who has respectively, in their own capacities, explored the issue... Then, pretty much every professor of Physics, (in pretty much every reputable university in the world) and then of course, the fabulous Wikipedia
I acknowledge that gravity exists, but I don't necessarily 'believe" in it.
As for Flat -Earthers, I'm not one of them because I am thoroughly convinced that the Earth is an octagonI highly doubt that Stephen Hawking takes creationism seriously.
But, even if he entertained the idea, his forte' is physics not biology.
Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7YEvolution is an observable phenomenon with millions of years of data to back it up.
Creationism is based on one book of ancient fables.
It requires FAITH to believe it.
Science requires evidence and the willingness to accept that evidence when it conflicts with previously held beliefs.
PaperDog wrote:Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y
PaperDog wrote:
Faith requires no evidence. For example, can you prove empirically,
- that love or hate of happiness or sadness "exists"?
- Only that which the eye can physically see, exists?
- That faith itself exists?
Mike Nobody wrote:PaperDog wrote:Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7YOkay, let me get this straight.
Creationism has legitimacy because Stephen Hawking concluded that GOD DOES NOT EXIST?
That's your argument?
Okayyyyy.....
No, I am saying that in order to prove or disprove any theory in the absense of obvious evidence, one has to embrace the theory objectively, without prejudice .
More to the point, a scientist would then assign alternate theories Viai "Null Hypothesis"
-My missing Car keys are due to trolls
-My missing car keys are due to my Forgetfulness
-My Missing car keys are due to the dog eating them.And without evidence someone can make any ridiculous claim they want;
"Trolls stole my car keys!"common logic
"Marshmallows cause cancer!"
"Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11!"
They are ridiculous if such claims are proved to be wrong. Fortunately, these calims would not be hard to prove wrong, or at least dispel with common logic"Well, I have FAITH!"
It doesn't make it so.
Nor does it make it 'Not so"As for the questions about love, hate, happiness, etc...
Don't be so facetious.
You know better than that.
Mike Nobody wrote:PaperDog wrote:Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y
Okay, let me get this straight.
Creationism has legitimacy because Stephen Hawking concluded that GOD DOES NOT EXIST?
That's your argument?
Okayyyyy.....PaperDog wrote:
Faith requires no evidence. For example, can you prove empirically,
- that love or hate of happiness or sadness "exists"?
- Only that which the eye can physically see, exists?
- That faith itself exists?
Faith requires no evidence?
Yes.
That's why it's called faith.
And without evidence someone can make any ridiculous claim they want;
"Trolls stole my car keys!"
"Marshmallows cause cancer!"
"Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11!"
"Well, I have FAITH!"
It doesn't make it so.
As for the questions about love, hate, happiness, etc...
Don't be so facetious.
You know better than that.
gtZip wrote:Mike Nobody wrote:PaperDog wrote:Actually, Stephan Hawking took creationism seriously enough that, he set out to dismantle the entire modern theory about it.
He has concluded that there is no God. But he did this, by abandoning prejudices and biases. (And Physics addresses alternate thoeries)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L7VTdzuY7Y
Okay, let me get this straight.
Creationism has legitimacy because Stephen Hawking concluded that GOD DOES NOT EXIST?
That's your argument?
Okayyyyy.....PaperDog wrote:
Faith requires no evidence. For example, can you prove empirically,
- that love or hate of happiness or sadness "exists"?
- Only that which the eye can physically see, exists?
- That faith itself exists?
Faith requires no evidence?
Yes.
That's why it's called faith.
And without evidence someone can make any ridiculous claim they want;
"Trolls stole my car keys!"
"Marshmallows cause cancer!"
"Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11!"
"Well, I have FAITH!"
It doesn't make it so.
As for the questions about love, hate, happiness, etc...
Don't be so facetious.
You know better than that.
He said can you prove it empirically.
The answer is 'no you can not'.
If you are insistent on empirical evidence, then higher mathematics must be invalid to you.
JCP61 wrote:actually the debate between creationism and what ever their calling scientific atheism these days, has very little to do with weather it can be proved that fish eventually become frogs. It has more to do with the appearance of randomness in nature. either the universe is random or it is not, if life was a random event then you cannot ever discover it's cause so science it self is finished. if it was created, than your life has a purpose and you are being watched. so end the end you must still decide where you will put your faith.
VinnyViolin wrote:JCP61 wrote:actually the debate between creationism and what ever their calling scientific atheism these days, has very little to do with weather it can be proved that fish eventually become frogs. It has more to do with the appearance of randomness in nature. either the universe is random or it is not, if life was a random event then you cannot ever discover it's cause so science it self is finished. if it was created, than your life has a purpose and you are being watched. so end the end you must still decide where you will put your faith.
If we were, for the sake of argument, able to determine conclusively that we were created intentionally
... that, in and of itself, would not necessarily prove that our life has a purpose, nor that we are being watched.
It would not validate the Christian myth above any other speculations about creation. Nor would it prove that our creator has a purpose, nor whether or not that creator was in turn the intentional creation of another creator, with or without a purpose.
Randomness is the label humans apply to events that have no apparent order to human observers. What we call "random" could just as well be exquisitely orderly events that occur beyond the range of present day human's ability to correlate and recognize. Randomness might be entirely subjective.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests