Part 30 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity>>>MOD ALERT<<<

MOD WARNING HERE
Part 30 is a continuation of Post your tough questions pertaining to God/Jesus/Holy Bible and I will do my best to clarify and make sense of it to those who are unaware...I still have questions and comments I haven't responded to in Part 8 thru 29.

Also I might answer questions that are on other members threads and so this will keep me real busy with the many questions that I will answer from my point of view/perspective keeping in line with Scripture.

I don't want my intentions to come across as converting you or whatever lol... but rather clear up things etc... so ask away.

 

It's just an evolutionists theory that humans are in the ape family in that we shared a common ancestor and so again it's a theory and not at all accepted as being factual by the majority.

In my view and many others apes are a distinct species of their own.

 

What the evolutionists are missing is PROOF. PROOF = evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. If the theory was absolutely true, then it is likely that everyone would be believers in the theory of evolution. But the PROOF is lacking and therefore not everyone believes in evolution.... minds of many people have not been convinced/compelled.

 

Then your view makes as much sense as saying that it's only a theory that Blue Jays are birds.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3 It isn't proof FOR YOU. Stop claiming something isn't proof when it IS proof for MILLIONS of people. And you are forgetting the other options out there for why your mind isn't convinced. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Patently clear that you have no idea what an appeal to popularity is. I was critiquing your outrageous claim that evolution has no proof behind it. It does have proof. The fact that you're unwilling to recognize it as such does not mean it doesn't exist, or that it isn't proof for millions of others. It isn't proof TO YOU. "There is no proof," and "That isn't proof TO ME" are completely different claims. You keep trying to claim the first one as if no other person on the planet is convinced of evolution. That's dishonesty.

MOD EDIT - Reply to deleted

 

And you keep throwing out this idea that because others believe something that I should be required to believe it also. So, until you can convince me that evolution is more than theory, that it is a fact, then it will remain in the unproven category. Now what is it that science cannot do? Oh yeah.. science cannot prove anything.

Perhaps I was chiding you about going off-topic. If I really believed that you were throwing out a personal attack, do you think that I would have responded to you post at all? No. I would have left your posting unanswered and would have clicked the little triangular icon at the bottom of the page and would have filed a complaint. However I did respond which if it was a legitimate complaint, the moderators could have also sanctioned me for answering that post. Learn how this forums dynamics operate.

 

Uh, no, I keep throwing out the idea that you should stop speaking for the rest of the world by claiming categorically that something is or is not proof. It is or is not proof for YOU alone. You don't get to speak for other people.

TO YOU. It is unproven TO YOU. How is it so hard to get through your head that claiming that there is no proof is a blanket statement? It isn't proof TO YOU.

We've had this conversation multiple times. You're using an equivocation fallacy. Science CAN prove things, it just can't prove things to an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. If you're trying to claim that science can't compel minds to accept something as true, then you are willingly being deceitful.

How was it off topic? I addressed YOUR post. If it was off topic, that means YOUR post was too.

YOU JUST ACCUSED ME OF USING A PERSONAL ATTACK. So yeah, I think you did believe it was a personal attack since, you know, that's what you accused me of. Secondly, of course you're going to lie about what you just said and avoid actually answering the question.

"Are you trying to claim that the ONLY option for you not being convinced is OUR failing?"

 

A theory in science means something fairly different than the word 'theory' used colloquially, in science it is something that has been tested and retested and is supported by enough experiment-driven evidence that it is "pretty much fact at this point". And the wording there is important: "pretty much" because, yes, nothing can ever be 100% certain, and "at this point" because a big facet of the scientific method is that Any theory must always remain on the table to be proven wrong.

Does this mean that there is not enough evidence to support evolution and prompt any reasonable person to agree it is real? Not at all. At this point in time, it is very reasonable, and most people, especially those with some form of higher education, agree it is fact.

 

Then so should you when saying things like "The fact that you're unwilling to recognize it as such does not mean it doesn't exist, or that it isn't proof for millions of others." Have you suddenly become the official spokesperson for those millions of others? You also don't get to speak for other people. Hello pot.

When are you going to get it through your head, that when I say 'there is no proof' I am speaking for myself and not for others? Remember.. I am the one who brought in the definition of 'proof' and explained that the individual person is the one who determines whether or not something is 'proof'.. As only that individual person can determine whether or not an assertive argument or evidence has compelled his/her mind to accept the assertion as true. Try to keep things straight.

No it is you who is attempting to use an equivocation fallacy. You are using it in an attempt to convince me and others that I have violated some supposed Logical rule to which I am not obligated to adhere.

By addressing your feelings about me as a person.

There you go getting all emotional ... so emotional that you have to start displaying internet screaming.

Absolutely. I am already convinced in one direction, and in order for me to change that direction, someone or something is going to have to convince me to change. If you and others are not trying to convince me, then why do you and others keep on arguing that I am wrong; that I am mistaken, that I am in error; that I don't know what I am talking about; etc. etc.?

 

There are millions of people that accept evolution as a scientific theory. That's how I'm making the claim. Not that difficult to understand.

When are you going to get it through your head that you're using general language that implies you're speaking in a general fashion and not in a specific fashion to yourself?

Are you the only individual person around? Do other individual persons not exist?

Uh, no, you are. Just because you don't recognize it as something you have to abide by doesn't make it not an equivocation fallacy.

First off, it isn't a supposed logical rule, it's a logical rule, period. Secondly, if you want your argument to be sound, valid, and not incorrect... yeah, you do have to adhere to those rules. That's like saying you don't have to abide by 2+2=4. Sure, you don't have to... but then you'd be an idiot.

Internet screaming? It's called caps locks, Incorporeal, and it's used for emphasis, just like bolding is. Are you going to start criticizing bolding and italicizing too? And again, even if I was "internet screaming", that doesn't change the fact that you accused me of personally attacking you and then tried to lie about it.

Uh, and what does that have to do with whether or not it is our fault or your fault for not being compelled? Just because you're "convinced in one direction" doesn't mean that the direction you're convinced in is the right direction, or that you're not convinced for stupid reasons.

 

Appeal to popularity.

And your use of "there are millions of people" would imply what, that you are speaking specifically for yourself?

Exist? Explain what "exist" means.

According to my judgement it is just a group of words used in a sentence. Just because you say that it is an equivocation fallacy does not mean that it is applicable to me.

If I want my argument to be sound, I would have to request that everyone with a suitable software installed in their computer, to activate that software and then my writing would be converted into sound argument for them to hear.

Show proof that I 'tried to lie about it'. You are closely approaching that line where I will ignore your comments and simply report you for your TOS violations.

The direction I am traveling in life is one of personal choice. So the issue of right or wrong is a decision that I make for myself. As for your perspective, that is merely your opinion as you have no authority to dictate to me what is 'right' or 'wrong'.

 

To say, "it is pretty much fact at this point" is the same as to say, "it is pretty much not quite a fact at this point" It is either a fact or not a fact, no such thing as "pretty much a fact" there is no middle ground between fact and not a fact.

Of course things can be 100% certain. For example it's a fact with 100% certainty that someday we all must die a physical death. That is not a theory, it's a fact.

You wouldn't say it's pretty much a fact that someday we all must die a physical death because you know with 100% certainty that it is a fact. So you can leave out the "pretty much" The fact that we must die someday is not debatable.

But the theory that humans are in the ape family in that we shared a common ancestor is debatable.

A theory cannot be proven either way to be right/wrong and so it can never be regarded as something factual.

Reasonable people can agree/disagree all day long on anything that is theorized. But all reasonable people, all 100% of them will agree on the fact that someday we all must die a physical death.

But not all reasonable people, not all 100% of them will agree on the theory that humans are in the ape family in that we shared a common ancestor.

How do you know that the majority of people with higher education agree on the theory that humans are in the ape family in that we shared a common ancestor is a fact...did you personally take a survey interviewing all these people with higher education?

Furthermore it doesn't matter if most regard it as a fact because the fact remains, it's just a theory, and theories are not facts.
The truth is they believe it's a fact that humans are in the ape family in that we shared a common ancestor but just believing something to be a fact doesn't make it a fact.

In summary, saying it's "pretty much" a fact is not good enough to make it a fact, again it's either a fact or not a fact. Theories, sorry to say, are "pretty much" stuck in limbo.

 

a scientific theory, which has been repeatedly challenged and remains standing, is so many times to the power of ten more likely than "it was done by invisible magic creature/s who live in the sky" that there probably isn't math for it.

go outside and pick up some dirt. what's it made of, and how was it made? a) it is the combined composted (over a long period of time) detritus of plant and animal life, combined with minerals dissolved from rock formations? or b) it's magical brown pixie dust?

 

Maybe you should have waited until he explained what he meant by reading the very next sentences, but of course you just jump in head first in a criticism of something you clearly didn't understand.

Sure, that's fact in colloquial language, but it is not a certainty. How do you "KNOW" that someday you will die? Because other human beings before you have. The only way you "KNOW" you'll die one day is because of your observations. But can you ever be 100% certain that your next observation will be the same? No, you can't. It's called the problem of induction. You need to read more about it before you start criticizing what this poster is saying.

We never know anything with a 100% certainty. What if starting tomorrow nobody ever died again? You have no way of knowing what will happen in the future to a certainty.

No, it's not, because it's not a theory. Humans belong to the ape family because that's how we made the taxonomic classification. If you actually responded to posts that rebut yours instead of wasting your time patting other posters that you're "allied" with on the back, you'd have seen my criticism. Saying that humans being apart of the ape family is debatable is like saying hawks belong to the bird class is debatable.

You really need to understand what the words "theory" and "fact" mean in science. They don't have the same meaning as our colloquial language.

\

Not unless you think it's reasonable to claim you can know the future to a certainty. Which you can't. You aren't clairvoyant.

That's because they're ignorant of what these things even mean.

 

You were questioning how I was speaking for others, I answered you. I don't know what the hell you're trying to claim is an appeal to popularity. I'm not appealing to it, I'm answering your question.

Those people already spoke for themselves. I'm relaying their conclusion to you: they accept evolution. Difficult to understand?

Why? So you can bog us down in another stupid semantics discussion?

Logic to your argument just as math is applicable if you used a mathematical argument.

Wow. Given the context of how I used sound, you really thought I meant sound as in the things we hear? Either you're a troll or incapable of understanding context.

I haven't violated any TOS violation. You accused me of personally attacking you, and then when I pointed out that I didn't, you backed off and said you didn't REALLY believe that I was personally attacking you.

None of these arguments bear out. How does the fact that you're making personal choices equate to you being able to decide the issue of right or wrong? The only way that argument makes sense is if you decide that your viewpoint is the only one that matters, and you certainly haven't established that fact. And just because it is an opinion, I don't see how I don't have the authority to dictate what is right or wrong.

 

Your comments do not explain "how". Want to try that one again.

They did speak for themselves? Where is your proof of claim that they spoke for themselves? Not difficult to understand, but I bet you are going to find yourself hard pressed to show convincing evidence that will amount to a proof of claim.

Are you not using semantics in your arguments? Well of course you are.

And what does that have to do with an alleged equivocation fallacy? Please explain.

Did you ever consider intentional sarcasm? Wow! There are almost always an alternative.

For the sake of continuing the discussion. BTW: What were the actual words I used in the statement in which you have provided your rendition of what you think I said?

For the same or similar reasons that you use to cause you to think that you are able to decide the issue of right or wrong.

When I decide if something is right or wrong, it is decided upon as to whether something is right or wrong from my perspective or world view. Such decision is only applicable to me and my perspective. Yes! I have certainly established that fact many times on this forum. I KNOW that I am right in certain matters and also KNOW that others are certainly wrong in certain matters. Example: Knowing what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' according to my world view.

So you think you have the authority to dictate to me what is right and what is wrong? Yeah... you can express your opinion, but I am not obligated by your opinion therefore, your are lacking in any authority over me and what is right or what is wrong. Only I decide that for myself.

 

Results from a study asking about whether the theory of evolution is true or not:

You're trying to claim that logic isn't applicable to you solely based on the fact that you don't accept it as authoritative. That makes zero sense. Even if you don't accept a law as authoritative doesn't mean that it isn't.

AKA, trolling.

"Ahh here we go... you present an appeal to popularity and follow that up with a personal attack. Hello moderators. Grasping for peace has gone off topic and is making a personal attack."

Then in your next post you claimed you didn't reallybelieve that I used a personal attack ("If I really believed that you were throwing out a personal attack, do you think that I would have responded to you post at all? No."). So, which is it, Incorporeal?

Except I don't claim that others can't make the same decision about my actions.

That's a tautology.

And why's that?

Solipsism.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWxCM6llL60

 

Having learned of evolution in "higher education" still does not make it fact. That "higher education" is just more indoctrination to the prescribed way of thinking.
There certainly is evidence for an advanced humans having occupied this planet prior to the extinction level event of about 12,000 years ago. Fully human species lived at the same time that those "pre-human" creatures did. It is the purveyors of the magical creation that have kept all this info hidden. All religions are insidious mind control programs. It is very easy to deceive a man; very difficult to undeceive him.

 

Here's another one for you, Mitt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHJQstGaQ-Q

 

And scientists, over the years have done many studies and cannot prove anything. So why do you think a graph provided by some special interest group is any different? Probabilities is the game you are playing.

View attachment 34134

What makes you think that logic is authoritative?

And yours is AKA, guessing.

Where is the wording of that post that you claim I said I didn't really believe that you used a personal attack? Please show that post.

Everyone is free to make whatever decisions they choose to make. Why is that so hard for you go grasp? What I said is that others cannot make a decision for me. Keep the record straight.

That is rationalization (making excuses for your own behavior). Trying to shove the blame onto someone else.

Because I don't attempt to force my decisions on other people. My decisions are my decisions and not necessarily the decisions of others. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Rationalization (making excuses for your own behavior).

 

and how do you know that you're not the one being deceived, with all your talk about pre-human species living before the dinosaurs?

 

Just because you disagree with (most likely because you don't understand) the proof, does not mean that they haven't proven it.

because if you don't want to use logic, then you might as well jump of a bridge, cause according to logic, you will die, but if you don't want to use logic, then you may reach nirvana.

That's a loaded term. Just because you don't agree with the rationale behind a certain person's behavior, doesn't make it an "excuse." It just means you disagree.

 

"most likely"? That would indicate that you don't KNOW. If you are insisting that they have 'proven it', then show the PROOF.

Who really knows for sure... perhaps "nirvana" is reachable with or without the use of logic. Otherwise, your suggestion would also indicate that the use of logic would prohibit ones reaching "nirvana". Can you show proof that will substantiate your suggestion?

"a loaded term"? How so? The term rationalization is fully defined ... how is it that you are perceiving the definitions to be 'loaded'? Don't you like those definitions? Do the definitions cause you unrest?