Jump to content


Photo

Man's Organs Create An Unsurmountable Problem For Accidentalists


  • Please log in to reply
182 replies to this topic

#181 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 June 2017 - 08:55 AM

 

 

What If: now, what does this mean in regards to your claim that you can "prove god" by logic?

humanity has been attempting the above since time began, and there is still no proof.

don't get me wrong, there is certainly something mysterious in regards to life, and to the universe as a whole, but to jump to the conclusion "there is a god" is unmitigated.

 

That is just an awful strawman, especially considering that in another thread I specifically said to you that nothing can prove God's existence.

 

I might agree that on some peculiar level of physics where the twilight zone seems near, there may be things that defy logic, in some way but how can you conclude they may defy logic, without using logic to argue it?

 

You see? You still use logic to argue and infer that logic doesn't apply. "This here leads to reality here, therefore logic doesn't apply here." 

 

Really it might only be a small piece of logic that doesn't apply there, which would apply 99.999999% of the time, for all other things.

 

Think of this following statement;

 

"No statement can ever be absolutely true, period."

 

Can you see the problem? This is a paradox, because if no statements can be absolutely known to be true, then the statement itself also can't be true.

 

However, since I am generous with my movie quotes and you seem to be hunting for the perfect Spock quote that he himself would defy logic, you may want to commit this one to memory in your argument against me, from The Undiscovered Country;

 

"Even logic must give way to physics."

 

(See, how generous I am) :D



#182 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 June 2017 - 03:28 PM

mike,you failed to address my illogical claim that you can use heat to chill your food.i even gave you the source that proves my claim.another thing, it's illogical to compare cars and chemistry.cars cannot self assemble, atoms and molecules can.the only thing i can give you credit for, is the fact that science has been unable to duplicate life.you say your claims for ID are supported.i say, so? and?there is usually more than one interpretation to evidence, or are you going to deny that fact.you are correct, i do not care about logic, i only care about what can be demonstrated.using heat to chill your food is one of the most illogical things i ever heard, but it's a demonstrated fact.logic is a field of beautiful flowers that smell really bad - paraphrased from spockedit:i had a peek at you logic link, and i noticed a large number of the questions are phrased as follows:Potato: The networks have really come through with quality programming this fall. Every night of the week there are shows with literate writing and skillful acting. Potato's spouse: You sound like a sucker. They'll put on anything that they think will keep you glued to the screen.1. yes2. no.i consider such things as nothing more than peoples opinion.


"another thing, it's illogical to compare cars and chemistry.cars cannot self assemble,"

But that is exactly what YOU attempted to do yourself when trying to disprove my observed fact the all of Man's 10 Interlocked, interdependent Vital organs must be assembled INSTANTLY (Empirical Science confirms that fact) or he dies..

See.. Remember what you wrote?

""example:
it takes a few days to build a 10 story building.
you: no it doesn't, you can do it in 1 minute.

absurd.


"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

#183 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:57 PM

mike,you failed to address my illogical claim that you can use heat to chill your food.i even gave you the source that proves my claim.another thing, it's illogical to compare cars and chemistry.cars cannot self assemble, atoms and molecules can.the only thing i can give you credit for, is the fact that science has been unable to duplicate life.you say your claims for ID are supported.i say, so? and?there is usually more than one interpretation to evidence, or are you going to deny that fact.you are correct, i do not care about logic, i only care about what can be demonstrated.using heat to chill your food is one of the most illogical things i ever heard, but it's a demonstrated fact.logic is a field of beautiful flowers that smell really bad - paraphrased from spockedit:i had a peek at you logic link, and i noticed a large number of the questions are phrased as follows:Potato: The networks have really come through with quality programming this fall. Every night of the week there are shows with literate writing and skillful acting. Potato's spouse: You sound like a sucker. They'll put on anything that they think will keep you glued to the screen.1. yes2. no.i consider such things as nothing more than peoples opinion.


"another thing, it's illogical to compare cars and chemistry.cars cannot self assemble,"

But that is exactly what YOU attempted to do yourself when trying to disprove my observed fact the all of Man's 10 Interlocked, interdependent Vital organs must be assembled INSTANTLY (Empirical Science confirms that fact) or he dies..

See.. Remember what you wrote?

""example:
it takes a few days to build a 10 story building.
you: no it doesn't, you can do it in 1 minute.

absurd.


"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

a few questions:
does the amoeba have all the "information" it needs to survive?
yes, it has all the information it needs to survive.

does it have any "organs"?
no, it doesn't have any "organs"

what do we conclude?
we can either reach into the box and pull out a rabbit, or come to some kind of rational, workable solution.
my conclusion would be they co-evolved.
this leaves a few loose ends, such as cardiovascular, nerve, and possibly optic systems.

i've already pointed this out to you at least twice, science does not know how animal phyla arrived here, this event left no history.

so, asking "which came first" is like asking "what's on the other side of the universe".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users