Jump to content


Community Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Clodhopper

  1. Klaas:

    That's your view, and my view is that you haven't given any good reason to believe creationism.

    In a sense, I have given good reason to believe it, or at least to majorly doubt evolution. I have not received any good defense for evolution or a good attack on creationism. If you'll notice, evolution is not observed today, and nothing is known on the origin of life. Creationism has an explanation for this, and has yet to be disproved. And to directly answer this quote, I will ask another question: If evolution is not true, what is the only other thing to believe?

    So I don't see the need why we should continue this and I hope you respect me enough to accept my decision.

    You can leave if you want. My only problem besides my first one is that you fling things around like, "Evolution is science, Creationism is religion," with no explanation, but only theoretical examples. Let me ask you this: If Creation is true, would it be religion or science? Why?

    I'm referring to creationism based on the Bible, evolutionism on science.
    We get our view from the Bible, but that is not all. Creation is supported by science, Klaas, if you'll take the time to read the rather thin book I recommended (it's only about 3/4 of an inch thick. There are more, if you'd like me to recommend them.). However, I have gone through the site that was recommended to me, and, as expected, found that evolution is based on a twisted view of science that includes many guesses. I posted several problems I had with their lack of science. Other than that, I can tell you haven't studied many Creationist books. Otherwise, you would know that Creationism is not based entirely on the Bible, So don't try that stuff on me.
    It probably is rational from my POV, but not from yours.
    I believe I recommended a book about logic for you. It's actually very in-depth, and it will take a while, but it's worth it.
    What's so hard about accepting that our opinions are different and that they won't change by this discussion?
    Nothing is bad about that. In fact, it is to be expected, but what is not good is when someone says something to the equivalent of, "I'll believe this no matter what you say." This being said, they might as well not be in the debate at all, because this is not debating. We came to debate evolution, not to say such things.

    Like I said, I'm not happy about all this. :)

  2. Klaas

    It's not that I'm against debating, but I just feel this debate is going nowhere and doesn't serve any purpose besides writing down our own views.
    You, Klaas, have not given any good reason to believe evolution. In fact, nobody has.


    We've had such debates here numerous times, and I think that any long-time forumer realizes that religious debates between religious people and atheists never go anywhere.

    Question for you, Klaas: Why are attacks against intelligent design scientific, and yet arguments supporting intelligent design are "religious."


    Another question: Was your response logical and rational, or illogical and irrational?


    Just a thought: I recomend this book - Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, by Bahnsen, Greg L.

    It'll clear some misunderstandings about the subject.

    Another thought: I also reccomend this book: Refuting evolution 2, by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

    It helps to know what the opposing veiw says.


    I recomend this book for you, too - Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis, by Bahnsen, Greg L.

  3. I am very dissapointed with the recent turn of events on this debate. we are supposed to be logical and rational debaters. We can't be like that if we say that we will believe whatever we want, no matter what anybody says. I think we all know full well this is not a logical response, but rather one of irrationality. There is no point to debating whatsoever if we will not debate in a reasonable manner, exercising logic and rational thought.

    People can say, "Science, science, science!" but if they cannot prove or have any good or logical reason to believe the way they do, it is faith. And although faith is inevitable in personal life, it should not be used in a debate to try to press their veiws.

  4. ProgramZeta:

    Just because we aren't around doesn't mean something doesn't exist. Like I said before, gravity would exist, just not at 9.81m/s^2 because there would be no humans to quantify it.

    Does this mean that gravity was variable in its power when humans were not around?

    For a time in human history, people thought the solar system revolved around the Earth, until such evidience was brought forward to revise the theory. Just because logic (at that time) dictated that everything rotated around the Earth, it did?
    Here's a good one! How do you know that the solar system didn't revolve around the earth at one time? Maybe it changed at one point and people realized it and changed their theories.
    Logic is a human tool and neccesity that describes our world to the best of our ability.

    I have already made clear that logic is not restricted to humans. Now ProgramZeta: Is your logic material or immaterial? Why?

    Just for kicks:

    If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

    Here's another one: If a man starts talking in a forest, and no female is around to hear him, is he still wrong? :) (no offense, anybody!)


    I always try to fall back to logics, which I know exist, and which I think are relyable, while you fall back to God. An exemple:

    Let me ask you a question, dude: What is keeping logic the way it is right now?

    If you want it or not, even JHWH was born from people that didn't understand something, and had to give a reason to it.

    You don't know that.

    Instead of knowing what phenomena have created our universe, like we do,

    Judging from your answers, you don't know how the universe what created. If no humans are around, there is nothing keeping anything from staying the same.

    they create a God that has created them  (Isn't that circular reasoning?  ).

    It would only be circular reasoning if the statement you made is true.

    Though, because religion has been so long in our system, because the church kept people stupid until even today, the dogma's are hard to be broken for some people.

    The Church. Are you perhaps refering to the Catholic Church, of which I am not involved in?

  5. As far as my (uneducated?) understanding, logic is just a human implementation of what we (as a speices) know to be true. Just because humans aren't around, doesn't mean gravity didn't exist. It just doesn't exist at 9.81m/s.

    It's not just Humans, mind you, but also all the animals. And even if it isn't just all the animals, all we need is one example. Think about it: A cat is sitting on the front porch, when suddenly a dog barks at it and starts chasing it. What does the cat do? It sums up the situation, and decides if this dog is a threat, and if it is, then to either fight, or run away. And ProgramZeta, not only have you 4 big problems with this view, but if gravity is present when there is no life, it obeys the Laws of Physics, and Physics flows from Logic. From that, it is a simple deduction to the Laws of Logic. Logic was here before us, and it will be here when we die.

  6. I suppose it is.

    After the guards left, and Mavi woke up, Jak started speaking:

    Jak: So what's your name? What'r you in for?

    Mavi: Wha-! Jak?

    Jak: Mavi! How'd they- I guess that's a stupid question. Where are the others? And what about Torn? Wasn't he supposed to be guarding you?

    Mavi: I'm sorry, Jak, but Torn got hit in the fight; I'm not sure if he's dead or not, but-

    At this point Mavi starts to sniffle. Jak scoots up next to her.

    Jak: Stop crying, Mavi. Right now we have to find a way out of here...

  • Create New...