Forums Register login What's New?
Should we reopen the book on Evolution?
Page 24 of 25
  1. Conceptual things don't exist either. We can conceive of a supernatural process, but it is not reality until we can observe one under scientific conditions and test it.

    Both terms involve matters that transcend the laws of nature. Magic has a popular connotation of illusion performed by the conjuror, while supernatural has a connotation of divine intervention invoked by the conjuror, but the definitions are essentially similar. When one word uses the other in its definition, the synonymity is unmistakable.

    su·per·nat·u·ral - adjective

    1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
    2 : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
    3 : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) ​


    mag·ic noun

    1 : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces; magic rites or incantations
    2 : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source
    3: the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand​

    Then why has this never been accomplished?

    Ohhhhh . . .

    Say, when did that question get simple?
  2. You personally? I don't know if you have made anything up, you sure do believe in a lot of fairy tales.

    You also have this ridiculous habit of trying to justify something in your own mind if it doesn't fit. Case in point: You asking what credentials will be acceptable to support your argument. The problem is that you have already made up your mind what is right and what is wrong. That's not how it works. It begins with ignorance, then discovering the truth. You're working backwards by choosing the end result, then looking around for what supports your belief while ignoring everything else and/or dismissing it as happenstance despite actual data that says otherwise.
  3. The question regarding credentials was perfectly valid. It helped me realize why these Creationist scientists are dismissed by people on this board. Once I realized what definition we are using for science I completely conceded the point. There is no other conclusion allowed under that definition.

    And about the other point, I think you are being disingenuous here. Everybody goes through there daily life with basic assumptions that until proven incorrect you simply maintain. You don't start everyday with a blank slate.
  4. There is no such thing.


    I'll ignore the last, useless sentence. It's okay to assume that what you know today will remain the same tomorrow. Just be ready to accept that your beliefs are wrong in the face of evidence otherwise and don't defend it to no end.
  5. I am perfectly willing to accept that I don't know everything. I have no problem with this. If you have any evidence about my errors please let me know.

    And as far as the evolution debate goes, all you guys did was keep the definition so narrow that it's impossible to discuss the topic openly. No worries....
  6. we showed you a zillion links about how steel actually melts and loses strength, but all you did was refer us to idiotic websites. you are thoroughly unwilling to accept when you are wrong. you acted like you were some kinda metallurgist and couldn't possibly be convinced that steel loses strength and collapses. you were so adamant about this that you invented all manner of excuses, each of which was magnificently less likely to be true, all because you were so stuck on a stupid premise that your horrible critical thinking skills wouldnt allow you to overcome.

    again, you simply do not understand the difference between reality/evidence/science and faith/religion/wishful thinking. that what we tried to explain.

    "creation science" is a contradiction in terms because creationism is a faith-based theory.
  7. Only because you wanted the discussion to be made so broadly to include fairy tales and faith. What next? Pixies and unicorns? Stick to the facts. That means faith is kept out of the discussion of science.

    It always puzzled me by why creationists simply didn't pull the "a lifetime to us is but the blink of an eye to God" argument out to explain why the Bible dates the world to around 6,000 years compared to what scientists have begun to speculate and proven. Leave it to fundies though to argue a point, have it proven wrong and then see them dig in anyway because that would mean admitting that either God is not perfect or there is not God. Both thoughts horrify believers, so they continue to blindly march on dragging their children with them, generation after generation.
  8. You are being very open-minded.

    But a bit dishonest. Definitions are real and can't be "widened" to suit yourself. Evolution is a science, so it is subject to scientific realities. In the other thread you can talk about the supernatural and what you think it means and how it operates as a concept without any narrow definitions . . . except when you ask us to accept concepts as established facts, which is simply not going to happen.
  9. I don't see what is dishonest about it. Your argument wins on a technicality. You rule out the actor I think is responsible for the situation so you are forced to come up with another explanation. I admit there is some logic to what you are doing. I just think you have come to the wrong conclusion based on that definition. Intra-species, or micro-evolution has been observed so you assume it happened on a massive scale. Ok....you have to, there is no other plausible explanation allowed.

    This has helped me realize one thing (based on that definition of science)......I never could understand why atheists were always discounting an event in the Bible and then coming back years later with an explanation. That used to drive me crazy. Like the parting of the Red Sea. Before they said it didn't happen, now they say with a certain wind blowing for so many hours it could happen.

    I don't think the chances of that coinciding with Moses and the Jews fleeing Egypt are very high, but then you are not able to attribute the event to another actor. It's not allowed.....ok, that's helpful for me to realize why they say that type of thing.
  10. I don't rule it out as an idea, just as a fact.

    Untrue. There is a massive amount of evidence that evolution happens at all levels, always has, and is continuing to do so. Micro-evolution is a concept developed by creationists so that they could dismiss as much evidence as possible. I have already responded to this. I have already responded to this notion, I might add.

    There are alternate explanations. The best one is that Exodus had a mistranslation and confused the Red Sea with the Reed Sea, a much smaller marshland north of the Red Sea and now bisected by the Suez Canal. Naturally, it was a "sea" of reeds with fluctuating water levels. In low water, dry paths could be found across it and in high water it was impassable, much like our own river bottoms in Louisiana. It was on the historical caravan route from the nile delta where the Israelites lived southeast to the Sinai peninsula and followed fresh water sources.

    For the Israelites to have gone south through the waterless desert to cross the immense Red Sea where it is 200 meters deep defies logical explanation. I am far more likely to believe that they prayed for the water to rise in the marshes that they just crossed than they traveled another 100 miles south and expected Moses to pray for the waters to stand back like a wall and the 10 meters of mud on the bottom of the sea to solidify and dry up for a crossing.

    You see, I can discuss religious concepts without having to first accept that must be absolutely true.
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 24 of 25