History and Divergent Doctrines

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

FFT,

YOURS:Maybe if you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd be able to reason with you. Unfortunately for you, I'm arguing from the high ground.

MINE:HEHE,good one.If delusion were the high ground,you would be correct.

--
TBax wrote:
YOURS:So tell me, how would you go about proving you had a brain, TBax?

MINE:Empirical logical proof or CAT Scan or surgery.Let me guess,are you going to say these aren't science?Don't continue to be silly about this.---
-
YOUR RESPONCE:Can you prove that these things aren't simply showing a temporary construct which serves no more than a decorative function? Can science?

MINE:The Empirical logical proof would provide that information and so would the CAT Scan.Again I need to spell things out.

YOURS:Ah yes, that. You've still failed to show how I'm unreasonable, only assert it. This is behavior we humans call "unreasonable."

MINE:I am so supprised you said that.I didn't see that coming.Do you even believe any proof exists for anything?

I believe this is PROOF.And you provided it by your responces.

1- Question-Are you saying science cannot prove that water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen? CAN SCIENCE PROVE THIS?YES OR NO?
YOUR RESPONCE:no

2- QUESTION-Let me ask you,not just to be sarcastic,but can science prove you have a brain?
YOUR RESPONCE:no

3-QUESTION-Are you saying the earth hasn't been PROVED to be a sphere?
YOUR RESPONCE:Yep

4-You can understand how all the parts of a watch can be put in a box and shook around and they would never assemble into the watch,yet,infinitely more complex life can come about by accident?You call this reasonable?

5-You think getting dealt 1000 Royal Flushes in a row is possible.You also think 2000 proteins coming about from nonliving matter randomly coming together and forming a cell, which has a 1 in 10 to the 40000 powers chance you believe is possible when any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50 Power is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.I know you gave a lot of "what if" explanations,but the "what if"s mean nothing.

6-You admit you would have to be crazy to expect 10 royal flushes in a ROW yet you think 1000 in a row is fesible?This is exactly why you are unreasonable.

7-My statements
1 theory:The Earth revolves around the sun.PROVED
2 theory:The Earth is round or a sphere.PROVED
3 theory:all mankind has a common ancestry.PROVED
4 theory:When hydrogen burns in the air, water is formed.PROVED
5 theory: the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." PROVED Now there may one day be more accurate measuring devises that may show slight varibles,but for the most part this is proved.
YOUR FIRST RESPONCE:TBax, TBax. Observations aren't theories.
MINE:This tells me you understand these are facts since they were observed,hence empirical proof,so I went on to prove they were theories.Then you said-

YOUR RESPONCE:Validation is not equivalent to proof, still.

MINE:You admit the empirical proof is there and then you turn around and deny it.You say Validation is not equivalent to proof when I showed you the dictionary says validation is the same as proof.

8--You word games prove it as well.The majority of our "evolution" conversation focused on spontaneous generation and you acted like you were confused as to what we were talking about.Since I didn't say "abiogenesis" you didn't know what my saying "life coming about by chance" meant.You didn't know what the whole Odds conversation was about since I didn't say "abiogenesis"?
Now you say in essence "science can discover information that can be used to prove things,but science doesn't prove anything."NIT PICKY WORD GAMES
_________________
Agape,
TBax

FFT · Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:22 am Post subject:

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

FFT,

YOURS:How would you prove that it wasn't just a temporary construct?

MINE:I'm not going into a lengthy discussion on this with you.My answer is sufficient but you cannot understand it.Figure out for yourself what kind of empirical logical proof would prove that it is not just decorative,or a temporary construct.There are scans and procedures that show brain activity, you know.

--
TBax wrote:
4-You can understand how all the parts of a watch can be put in a box and shook around and they would never assemble into the watch,yet,infinitely more complex life can come about by accident?You call this reasonable?
--

YOURS RESPONCE:That wouldn't be reasonable. Luckily, that's a strawman.

MINE:That doesn't make sence.The definition for strawman doesn't fit this at all.How is this a strawman?Explain.--Oh! I see,because of your next statement.But your next statement is bogus,and makes no sence.I believe the first half,but the second half proves nothing.Your acting like life can just come together by a chain reaction of chemical reactions.Science fiction.That statement is not a strawman.

YOURS:Life wasn't an accident—biochemistry isn't random.

MINE:That is how much of this started, isn't it?THERE IS NOTHING IN BIOCHEMISTRY THAT EXPLAINS HOW A PROTIEN COULD DEVELOP OUT OF NONLIVING MATTER,LET ALONE A LIVING SINGLE CELL.Your statement is bogus and not reasonable.Another- what if,not based on ANYTHING.

YOURS:Look: science doesn't prove things. It validates or disproves them. There is always the possibility that new evidence will disprove an observation. And that is why science is unable to prove things.

MINE:I see.There may be more information in the future that proves the earth is actually flat.You said science validates or disproves.AGAIN WORD GAMES.

DEFINITION FOR PROOF-1.The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2 a)The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
B)A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3 a)Convincing or persuasive demonstration:
b) The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

Are you saying none of these definitions fit with the discoveries science is able to make?
Is the assertion that the earth is round,or a sphere true?Have you seen convincing or persuasive demonstration that this is the case?Can you be reasonable?Do I need to show you the definition for reasonable?
_________________
Agape,
TBax

FFT · Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject:

And I'm the one playing word games?

I wash my hands of this.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

TBax · King Kong Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 2126

FFT,

YOURS:And I'm the one playing word games?

MINE:Correct.Providing a definition is NOT playing a word game, my friend.I understand why you wash your hands of this.You cannot explain away those definitions for proof.You are too tenacious to let something go unless you realise you are defeated.But you still can't admit that either.

The only reason I've been tenacious is to show why I won't discuss scripture with you.As you are unreasonable as this conversation verifies,or proves.
_________________
Agape,
TBax