Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Okay, just clarifying.of course he/she would.
Okay, just clarifying.of course he/she would.
This 'someone else' you cannot even demonstrate exists.@Caroljeen
And I would counter that Mr Skeptic does not appreciate the fact that everything he possesses has been given to him by someone else. He just doesn’t know who that one is.
There are arguments for God but probably not anything you would be interested in. I imagine you like to keep things simple. If you cannot subject something to your senses then it doesnt exist. God is intelligible so not physical, although we know about him through the things he has made.This 'someone else' you cannot even demonstrate exists.
I am always interested in arguments for the existence of any god. I doubt that you have any that I've not heard, though - that's not a reflection on you, just that there are a finite number and I've heard a lot.There are arguments for God but probably not anything you would be interested in.
That's nice. Probably best to keep what you imagine to yourself.I imagine you like to keep things simple.
You would do well to stop attempting to tell me what and how I think.If you cannot subject something to your senses then it doesnt exist.
No, we don't know about him through the things he has made - you are just begging the question. You must demonstrate his existence before we can talk about what he has made.God is intelligible so not physical, although we know about him through the things he has made.
I am always interested in arguments for the existence of any god. I doubt that you have any that I've not heard, though - that's not a reflection on you, just that there are a finite number and I've heard a lot.
That's nice. Probably best to keep what you imagine to yourself.
You would do well to stop attempting to tell me what and how I think.
Right, you don’t. We agree on something.No, we don't know about him through the things he has made - you are just begging the question.
No I don’t. If you set the goal posts so far away that you can never reach them then you set yourself up for failure. (See above)You must demonstrate his existence before we can talk about what he has made.
You misread (or mistyped). WE don't.Right, you don’t. We agree on something.
Yes, you do. And since I've not set any goal posts at all, the rest of this paragraph does not make sense.No I don’t. If you set the goal posts so far away that you can never reach them then you set yourself up for failure. (See above)
IF. And before y ou can show that creation itself is a part of him, you need to demonstrate his existence.If creation itself is part of him and from him then it helps to talk about creation in order to demonstrate him.
All irrelevant until you can demonstrate the existence of this god.That is why this discussion of evolution is important because it is a mechanism within creation to bring about the will of God, that is to produce moral beings. If you remove moral beings from the discussion of God then you miss the whole point of creation itself and of God himself. They are intertwined, creation and God.
Ha! That's the end of that conversation...All irrelevant until you can demonstrate the existence of this god.
I finished chapter 5 on Natural Selection: The Engine of Evolution
<snip>
On complexity- Coyne stated, "Hard problems often yield before science, and though we still don't understand how every complex biochemical system evolved, we are learning more every day. After all, biochemical evolution is a field still in its infancy. If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that what conquers our ignorance is research, not giving up and attributing our ignorance to the miraculous work of a creator.
My boss who was a flight surgeon used to say, “We learn more and more about less and less until we know everything about nothing.” How true!When you hear someone claim otherwise, just remember the words of Darwin: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
<snip>
Next up: Chapter 6: How Sex Drives Evolution
I believe that was Darwin's point. Coyne quotes him frequently in his book.My boss who was a flight surgeon used to say, “We learn more and more about less and less until we know everything about nothing.” How true!
I have heard it said another way, “The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know.”
To Coyne’s point, there is an association between religious fundamentalism, education level, and denial of evolution. IOW, People with the least education (i.e., those who actually know less than others) are more likely to be religious fundamentalists and consequently deny evolution. There was a study done several years ago that demonstrated it.
It is also reinforced by the findings of Dunning and Kruger, as well as being demonstrated several times a day on this board.I believe that was Darwin's point. Coyne quotes him frequently in his book.
I respect the atheists and evolutionists on CARM. Most are able to make reasonable and logical arguments for their beliefs.It is also reinforced by the findings of Dunning and Kruger, as well as being demonstrated several times a day on this board.
Obviously, not everyone who has doubts about evolution is a numbskull, just as not everyone who accepts evolution is knowledgeable or suitably modest about their lack of knowledge. It is very clear however that both Darwin's and Coyne's points are illustrated very regularly here.
When a poster takes the trouble to look up a reference that is unfamiliar, no criticism can be applied to them. You don't know everything. I certainly don't know everything. There is a difference between those who come here hoping to learn and those who come here to demonstrate that in their view, they have nothing to learn.I respect the atheists and evolutionists on CARM. Most are able to make reasonable and logical arguments for their beliefs.
I had to look up Dunning and Kruger.
When a poster takes the trouble to look up a reference that is unfamiliar, no criticism can be applied to them. You don't know everything. I certainly don't know everything. There is a difference between those who come here hoping to learn and those who come here to demonstrate that in their view, they have nothing to learn.[\QUOTE]
Criticism is expected in these forums.
Criticism is expected in this type of forum.When a poster takes the trouble to look up a reference that is unfamiliar, no criticism can be applied to them. You don't know everything. I certainly don't know everything. There is a difference between those who come here hoping to learn and those who come here to demonstrate that in their view, they have nothing to learn.
... and flying fish, which are water-up gliders.Meanwhile examples of gilders abound (multiple flying squirrel species, sugar glider, a lizard....)
There was one thing I found interesting in chapter 7 and was wondering how I could find out more. On page 196 Coyne wrote, "The second prediction of the theory involves geography itself. If populations must usually be physically isolated from one another to become species [prevents reproductive intermixing and therefore DNA intermixing], then we should find the most recently formed species in different but nearby areas. You can get a rough idea of how long ago species arose by looking at the amount of difference in their DNA sequences, which is roughly proportional to the time elapsed since they split from a common ancestor..."I'm struggling reading this chapter on, The origin of species, in which the author is explaining HOW species evolved with a couple of different theories, biological and geographical. I keeps putting me to sleep. I don't even want to discuss it. I have 4 pages left.
The next chapter is on the evolution of man. It will be the most difficult thing for me to accept.