Creation or Evolution?

[Farah]

cogito ergo sum

quod erat faciendum motherfucker

[N. Escalona]

I see.
So a more accurate thing to say would be, existence implies existence?

[Smegma]

cogito ergo sum

quod erat faciendum motherf**ker

Yea, we already discussed this in another topic and I already argued why QED here is not justified.

I see.
So a more accurate thing to say would be, existence implies existence?

More accurate? Not really sure, but I still think it to be incorrect. The most accurate would be existence is existence.

[Farah]

qed != qef

basically i'm not saying HEY IM RIGHT im saying HEY THIS IS A FORMAL PROOF OK

[Smegma]

qed != qef

basically i'm not saying HEY IM RIGHT im saying HEY THIS IS A FORMAL PROOF OK

And I discussed why cogito is not a formal proof.

[excruciator]

But they are mutual exclusive.

It's either god created em, or made naturally by natural evolution.

[Farah]

link or post it here, pretty curious of this

But they are mutual exclusive.

It's either god created em, or made naturally by natural evolution.

or god created evolution and he let that shit roll

yeah don't be so close minded

[Smegma]

http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=32294.40


It carried on from Page 3, near the beginning of it.

[N. Escalona]

But they are mutual exclusive.

It's either god created em, or made naturally by natural evolution.

Evolution is not creation. Creation is ex nihilo, from nothing. Evolution only rearranges things. Thus it's easy to posit that God created the universe and perhaps sparked life, and then let evolution do the rest.

[Farah]

no use of I implicates that one's own awareness of self is there
as long as you think you're there, no matter whether you exist or not, I is still a valid term

[Smegma]

It makes the assumption you exist to prove that you exist.

[excruciator]

link or post it here, pretty curious of this

But they are mutual exclusive.

It's either god created em, or made naturally by natural evolution.

or god created evolution and he let that s**t roll

yeah don't be so close minded

What if natural evolution was never discovered?
Would god still created evolution?

It's just weird that God supposedly created everything that man discovered.
But if evolution has always existed, even if it was not discovered by man, then creationist should still about it. It's just very strange that creationist does not know more than the scientists despite the fact that they are the closest one to the creator of everything.

But they are mutual exclusive.

It's either god created em, or made naturally by natural evolution.

Evolution is not creation. Creation is ex nihilo, from nothing. Evolution only rearranges things. Thus it's easy to posit that God created the universe and perhaps sparked life, and then let evolution do the rest.

I know you are right, but I'm sure the creator of the thread want us to discuss evolution and the creationism(in term of species), not abiogenesis.

Don't pull something different into this.

[Farah]

you missed the point

they are not mutually exclusive concepts no matter how you try to relate them to each other
there are infinite possibilities as to how they can be connected, or how they cannot etc.

[Smegma]

No one ever said creationists are the closest to the creator. Also the knowledge of god does not imply practical or contingent knowledge.

[excruciator]

No one ever said creationists are the closest to the creator. Also the knowledge of god does not imply practical or contingent knowledge.

But they are still closer, so supposedly, they should know a bit more.


they are not mutually exclusive concepts no matter how you try to relate them to each other
there are infinite possibilities as to how they can be connected, or how they cannot etc.

[/quote]

Not missing it, just discussing another.

EDIT:

I know there is no direct correlation between "being closer" and "know more".
But is a common sense that you would know about someone(or thing if you are closely observing than distantly).

[Smegma]

No one ever said creationists are the closest to the creator. Also the knowledge of god does not imply practical or contingent knowledge.

But they are still closer, so supposedly, they should know a bit more.

Did you read the second sentence?

[VijchtiDoodah]

I know species can evolve depending on their environment and long time scales..

First of all, be careful. You don't know species can evolve with any certainty. It's a belief, based on logic and the available evidence. You might be right, but still can't be certain.

Such a weak argument: "you can't be certain, therefore you don't really know." Skepticism is only useful in the absence of credible evidence, but evolution stands on an unparalleled collection of supporting evidence. Take the modern evolution of the fence lizard in Alabama, for example: within 70 years, this animal reacted to the invasion of fire ants by evolving longer legs and a twitching trait to shake off the ants when they attack. Or insects evolving defenses against insecticides within a century, bacteria evolving defenses against antibiotics in decades, the speciation of Tragopogon plants at least three different times within the last 50-60 years, etc. In light of mountains of proof, we can be certain that evolution, or at least an as yet undescribed process nearly indistinguishable from evolution, is undoubtedly occurring. And much of the evidence necessarily stems from the new alleles you thought this discussion required.

If evidence of observable evolution is not enough for those with your belief system, then nothing will be; and I daresay that Creationism should be measured against the same standards, for if direct proof is not enough for evolution, then an absence of any observable evidence should signal the end of belief in supernatural creation.

[Smegma]

If evidence of observable evolution is not enough for those with your belief system, then nothing will be;

Thats not true, we just dont know yet.

for if direct proof is not enough for evolution

Your evidence is not really direct proof.

[excruciator]

If evidence of observable evolution is not enough for those with your belief system, then nothing will be;

Thats not true, we just dont know yet.

for if direct proof is not enough for evolution

Your evidence is not really direct proof.

You are running out of points to argue against aren't ya?

It just on everthing that was said by ^, you picked on a "technicality".

EDIT:

Explain direct to us.

[Smegma]

Nope, its just that is all that needed to be said at the moment.