ProHypster

It doesn't matter, I watched some more videos with Richard Dawkins, thought some more, read some more articles and got convinced that Evolution is actually fairly represented in the science world. I re-take my post where I said a lot of it is philosophical, I find it very much proven.

I think if Socrates or Leaonardo Da Vinci lived today they would have a different view of the world. (Not that it matters)

Oh man that was a long argument with me, ah it doesn't matter, everyone benefited from it, I want to thank the guys here who had this argument with me and provided some good links and facts.

All of evolution weak points have been re-proven as I've seen and they make more sense as I got better understanding of them.

I also very much like Richard Dawkins' logic. How did I miss this guy?????

Alright thanks for the debate.

Religion may coexist with evolution but really if there is deist he has as much of a chance to do with the bible or koran or any other ancient book religion as to personally preferred Pantheism, Panentheism, Pandeism, Panendeism.

It could be Atheism but that's just not my current position.

As to the Big Bang theory, I've heard a lot of scientific skepticism about it so I do not know.

I guess more article reading for me.

Alright, guys take care, seek truth and wisdom, peace and rest.

Last word here:

I honestly think science is not what it used to be.

It's corrupted with weak arguments associated with strong evidence.

I suggest any science enthusiast here to check themselves what the probability there really is for everything that got supposably happened before 4000 Years BC.

I understand the strong foundation of Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection but Macro-Evolution...

You have to really check the "evidence" for it and if you're not going to do it seriously, well I can't help you.

@Rover's last post: Why is there not a lack of data for Macro-Evolution then??? Are you sure there was Big Bang? What kind of realistic evidence are we talknig about here when we are talking about the Big Bang that formed the universe and happened 3 Billion years ago????? Are you kidding me, we are capable of proving that, well I didn't know we are that advanced, why don't I see robots yet?

@Daniels last post, I'm talknig about the ancestor of all life forms. My terms suck, I don't speak english with ukrainians and both of you rushed me so I couldn't use the dictionary.

It is clearly evident here what is going on.

Atheism/Monotheism/Polytheism/Creationalism is a subject of philosophy while Evolution is a subject of science*.

EDIT: Evolution is actually subject of scientific laws combined with weak arguments but scientists take the argumentive part and make it a scientific theory so it's unfair to debate it with scientists by their rules when they take weaker theories of evolution for granted and as proof.

We cannot agree.

It's quite sad actually, I thought this argument could come to an agreement.

Well, good luck finding the truth. Think, try to be wise and you will succeed in finding the truth.

@Rover

The second I read from your text that I don't get to decide wether something is scientific or not, I went, "Ha! Not me, I am a philosopher for the F**** time!"

I will watch the video and respond to it later but I can;t ultimately promise you will get any kind of knowledge after filtering my post for science.

EDIT: On the last part of your post, really, you scientists baffle me very badly. Why do you assume there was a Big Bang from nothing, that we evolved from a common ancestor (also very theoretical, highly argumentative) and then say eveything needs evidence. Hell why don't you need evidence that you exist? Who choses what you need to prove and what you don't in science. What kind of blasphemy is this?

@Daniel

Oh crap, really? I just went for the second video on youtube.

Well, I really don't give a damn, that was mainly for some kind of response to "the eye"

Hell, do you think I watch this guy in Ukraine??

 

What ego!

 

I'm sorry, but just because we make rules doesn't mean that ALL RULES have to be "created".

You have to provide evidence of this creator. "It just has to be!" is not an argument. It is, again, a logical fallacy.

No, I don't. You do, I am a philosopher though. I know certain things can't be proven and scientists will fancy themselves over it with their huge scientific fundament.

Yet again it's called deductive reasoning not a logical fallacy.

Scientists have funny reasoning though. I'm tired of science enthusiasts here making fun of philosophical theories.

What foolishness.

Enjoyed those videos though

I guess I can add another one from him..

Yeah, yeah, I know this doesn't mean anything.

Guys, the most important thing is to find out the truth for yourself and by yourself, good luck!

I further see no point in arguing here, I am not a science anthusiast, I don't think everything true is science, I think everything true is philosophy so I can't really prove much here, most people are scientists...

And remember:

Scientist 3-9 years of University

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 10 Years of University, highest degree possible.

I don't think that is an argument for ignorance. It is an argument of natural relation.

We have no reason to believe that rules aren't made by a Creator, while we do have some for.

1. In our own society rules are always made for control and always have a creator.

2. It would relate to the world as being a game by someone just like football is a game invented by us.

That is the two safe ones I can say.

It is deductive reasoning, but that is more than what reasoning people have against a deity.

Regardless of that, I need to find out if that is somehow connected to the bible, Koran... which it likely isn't.

Maybe in the end both evolutionism and creatonalism theories will be mostly right.

Rules have a creator.

 

Why?

Well, that is, at least how our society works, we are the ones who create rules, they don't just exist.

I'm not saying it has to be, it's just, at the moment at least to me it is much more logical since we can connect to that much more than living in a world with random rules.

Still, that is just one creationalist argument.

Come to think of it, It is an argument by observation, therefore evidence???

I'm more interested in the counter-argument though, why would there be rules without a creator?

Well it's all simple to me now, rules cannot be there.

Rules in our life are always made for sport events, laws for governance. Both for control

This world has rules.

Rules have a creator.

Whatever the creator is there must be one. Not that it has to be religious.

Doesn't it make sense to you at all? From what argument do you think rules can exist without a creator?

That's not evidence. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.

hmmmm....

Elaborate on this and I you will prove creationalism/deitism is a weak theory.

 

My mission is to get smarter and wiser in life not to rely on logical fallacies.

 

Go on then.

 

On to the evolution hard facts and theories.

 

For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection.

 

Creationism relies on different logical fallacies for different types of arguments. Sometimes, they use "wishful thinking", while others uses arguments from ignorance, and still others just resort to ad hominem types of arguments.

 

For example:

"Irreducible complexity", for example, is an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

 

For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection.

 

Essentially this is another "argument from ignorance". We do know that it was due to natural selection. See the "London Underground Mosquito" for more information.

Sorry, I misstated, I edited my post.

Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance.

The scientists answer, random complexity is also an argument from ignorance, in reality there is multiple logical positions on the argument of complexity.

That's not evidence. In fact, it's a logical fallacy.

hmmmm....

Elaborate on this and you will prove creationalism/deitism is a weak theory.

My mission is to get smarter and wiser in life not to rely on logical fallacies.

Go on then.

On to the evolution hard facts and theories.

For example, it is observed that speciation can happen, it is not known that it is due to natural selection.

EDIT: Oh crap, never mind, I just now realized I messed up the terms. That's what you get when you speak russian terms...

I meant that if natural selection is proven and a hard fact it doesn't mean it is because of evolution.

So let me ellaborate on my position, I agree that natural selection happens along the species, therefore speciation happens. I do not know that we all come from a common ancestor. I do not think that is a hard fact but I think it is a theory.

What you've done is a morphological deduction based on a variety of physical factors, which is partially how we can understand evolution when we see it in the fossil record.

Except they do it with bones not with photographs and I already know that a cat exists, while they drew up an entitiy and then compared it to the bones.

But we recently agreed there is evidence for a deity in the creationalist view..

"Just a theory" is something you're going to have to elaborate on. Gravity is "just a theory". Thermodynamics is "just a theory". Germs are "just a theory".

 

That word "theory", I do not think it means what you think it means.

I always say theory in the philosophical way, when I'm talking abot the scientific theory I say scientific theory.

Wait, what? Where did rover say that? Also, evolution isn't "philosophical". It's hard science.

1. Some of evolution is hard facts, the rest is just accepted as it is supporting theories and noone bothered for some reason to divide evolution into two, what is actually certain and are laws and what are scientific or philosophical theories.

2. That's what we are debating right now.

it's not logical at all. If the Earth/universe was "created", then what "created" the creator?

The life force/spirit/god was always there for goodness sake . And yes the universe could also have been always there. It is arguable. In one the laws of the universe are made by someone, in the other the laws of the universe always existed. And as far as I know, laws are always made by someone.

Except that evolution can be falsified. As rover said. Find a Precambrian rabbit.

What if I assemble "prehistoric" bone structure so that it resembles a rabbit.

There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE for any type of deity...so, how do you know that it's not just invented like Luke Skywalker was? Unless you wish to provide some evidence.

 

Again, I'm getting the run around. Why can't anyone just provide the evidence instead of giving excuses?

I already said that spiritism, logical and reasoning of life are evidences for deities or spirits.

If there was absolutely zero evidence (not even logical) for a deity/spirit then philosophers are illogical. Makes lots of sense.

A cat

So explain the picture now...

@Rover

The second chromosome is the one that is identical to smart apes as far as I know.

It is a structure in the DNA.

By the way, I am reducing some of evolution from a scientific theory. I don't believe it is a scientific theory to say that dinosaurs existed some years ago. I believe it is just a theory.

I am not questioning scientific theories overall, I believe in scientific theories. I think that some of evolution is a philosophical theory rather than a scientific theory. Because I think that hominids, natural selection and dinosaurs lie outside the realm of science just as rover said.

And creationalism is a logical theory because in this theory the world was created logically or in other words it is a rational thought that God created the world due to logical arguments supporting the existence of (a) God/Life Spirit. Or in even simpler words, the math in creationalism definetly would work. It doesn't mean it's true but it is a possiblity that cannot be proven wrong unless we find some other truth that is also logical.

My main idea is that natural selection just like god, dinosaurs, hominids...(although multiple gods can logically be falsified) cannot be falsified, therefore it is not science but a philosophy.

Creationalism is a logical theory, that is one thing I am certain of.

What kind of evidence? What if I say that the skeleton of a hominid was actually an ape.

Are you saying that Natural Selection, and of course fossils which are said to be animals and hominids from the past cannot be falsified?

I am reducing these theories to a plain theory from a scientific theory.

macro-evolution and creationalism are both theories.

 

Do you really want me to start bashing my head against the nearest wall? They are not both theories, the theory of evolution is a theory. Creationism is most certainly, without a doubt, not

I don't understand, creationalism and macro-evolution are both logical. Since they are logical, they are theories.

Well there is spiritism, reasoning of life, logic vs randomness test, paranormal things that are a demonstration that there is something out there, those are facts.

I'm guessing the typical creationalist would say:

1. By your presumptions

2. Relevance is that it is evidence for some

3. The video you showed where a watch miraculously evolved on a computer?

4. , ok that one disproves abiogenesis not evolution.

5. Actually True

6. Also True

Actually 96% of the members of the American Academy of Science (the top scientists in the country) do not believe in god.

I think the guy meant from the 10.000 scientists.

And I'm not going into debate again I already left saying that most/half of evolutionary laws should be taught as a fact.

I cannot prove creationalism to you or myself either, that's why I am an agnostic, but I can make out that historical and macro-evolution and creationalism are both theories. To you and most evolutionsts, evolution is a fact. To most creationalists, creationalism is a fact.

I think I can understand why most philosophers die monotheists. There is one tiny fundament in philosophy, it is the fundament that everything in this world is logical. If this world is random as macro evolution says, it stops being logical and when this world stops being logical, then no action in this world is wrong or right, in fact, then there is no action, there is only randomness.

So my question to you is, do you think this world is completely random?

If so, then what's the point of you arguing here, you are just some randomness in some random world, living randomly an will die randomly.

Besides, if everything comes from the common ancestor, what does the common ancestor come from?

It practically suggests abiogenesis.

It seems like some theories of evolution are a paradox of both the mind and the world.

Then I ban you for having something copyright infringed in your sig.

For it to be denied by some other believer again?

The minute I post

The evidence against macro-evolution and naturalism includes: (1) no fossil transitional forms have been found; (2) more than 10,000 professional scientists believe in biblical creation and 85 percent believe in God; (3) the probability that the DNA molecule is the result of chance and time is zero; (4) the laws of thermodynamics; (5) molecular mechanisms, for example vision, are irreducibly complex and could never evolve; (6) the Cambrian explosion where basic animal groups appeared suddenly without evidence of ancestors.

And it's going to go on forever, sort of like this:

Ok, no more crap on this topic please. Only if you want to add something to Atheism being philosophical or not or actually only if you deny what we agreed on pg. 10.

It is designed with the typical person in mind though, and for non-gamers/programmers/professionals it looks to be an exceptional OS.

, But those are the typical people who use an OS.

Add wedge shaped support:

or make slimmer:

1. Mass Effect Series

2. Elder Scrolls Series

3. Counter Strike (except CZ)

4.Half Life (all of them)

5.The Sims Series

 

That basically sums its up for me.

I have a question... why not CZ? Have you played the campaign (Story line)?

Making more faces wouldn't change any requirements, it would add maybe 2-10 mb of space.

Realistic breaking means just making the proportions of the blocks at least right. Also could have easily been made with the requirements.

They released it because they worked on Hl for way too long and I don't blame them. They practically re-did the game when they released it, remember the beta videos?

Of course I would've liked a better breaking system and more variations plus realistic firing but at that time it was a huge step to do what Valve did anyway and none of the competitors had more realistic firing so they didn't need to do it, they could've but they didn't bother as customers will still buy the game as they have no choice. It's a marketing strategy, do what is the minimal requirements for the most reward.

Now, that doesn't mean Valve are evil, they are the same as 90% of commercial businesses, except they have some more talent.

This topic ended 3 pages ago when we (Dan-95, the creator of this topic, me, Alyxx, most people) agreed what Atheism is and noone denied the agreement.

Post any of the things that you should be aware of that are dangerous but not widely/enough known of or that people aren't aware of.

It's actually a pretty serious topic, please, no religion or belief crap here.

Alright, I will begin and you'll get the idea of how this topic works:

Dozens of partygoers at an outdoor rave near Moscow last week have lost partial vision after a laser light show burned their retinas, Russian health officials said on Monday.

 

Moscow city health department officials confirmed 12 cases of laser-blindness at the Central Ophthalmological Clinic, and daily newspaper Kommersant said another 17 were registered at City Hospital 32 in the centre of the capital.

 

Attendees at the July 5 Aquamarine Open Air Festival in Kirzhach, 80 km (50 miles) northeast of Moscow, began seeking medical help days after the show, complaining of eye and vision problems, health officials told Reuters.

 

"They all have retinal burns, scarring is visible on them. Loss of vision in individual cases is as high as 80 percent, and regaining it is already impossible," Kommersant quoted a treating ophthalmologist as saying.

 

Attendees said heavy rains forced organisers to erect massive tents for the all-night dance party, and lasers that normally illuminate upwards into the sky were instead partially refracted into the ravers' eyes.

 

"I immediately had a spot like when you stare into the sun," rave-attendee Dmitry told Kommersant.

 

"After three days I decided to go to the hospital. They examined me, asked if I had been at Open Air, and then put me straight in the hospital. I didn't even get to go home and get my stuff," he said.

 

Cosmic Connection, promoters of the Aquamarine rave, were unreachable and did not list contact numbers on their Web site.

 

Industry Web site http://www.laserfx.com said focused laser light can cause eye damage almost instantly.

 

The owner of a Moscow laser rental company told Reuters the accidental blindings were due to "illiteracy on the part of technicians".

 

"It was partly the rain, but also partly the size of the laser. Somebody set up an extremely powerful laser for such a small space," said Valentin Vasiliev, who said his company did not provide the Aquamarine lasers.

 

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/article ... ticlePage2

Alyxx! Alyxx!! They're debating Evolution vs Creationalism in the "Atheism: Philosophically redundant Thread"!