Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 157

Thread: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    When I was in Tibet last July I talked with the inn owner where I was staying, and she told me that most Tibetans who have lived on the plateau their entire lives will get sick if they go down to sea level, and have a hard time adjusting.

    One thing the article stated incorrectly is that there is 40% less oxygen at high altitude. This is untrue and most people make this mistake. The amount of oxygen is the same at all altitudes where humans reside, but the difference is the pressure and therefore the concentration. When pressure decreases, for some reason your body becomes much less efficient at extracting O2 from the air, so it needs time to create more red blood cells to increase cellular perfusion.

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    When I was in Tibet last July I talked with the inn owner where I was staying, and she told me that most Tibetans who have lived on the plateau their entire lives will get sick if they go down to sea level, and have a hard time adjusting.

    One thing the article stated incorrectly is that there is 40% less oxygen at high altitude. This is untrue and most people make this mistake. The amount of oxygen is the same at all altitudes where humans reside, but the difference is the pressure and therefore the concentration. When pressure decreases, for some reason your body becomes much less efficient at extracting O2 from the air, so it needs time to create more red blood cells to increase cellular perfusion.

    I'm not an expert on this subject so let me see if I can determine exactly what you mean.

    When you say the oxygen is the same at higher elevations, I assume you mean it remains 21% of the existing pressure (or amount-of-air-per-given-volume), but the partial-pressure of oxy is lower because the overall pressure of the atmosphere is lower... right?

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #43
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Uh, Zyphlin, you do realize that Intelligent Design is nothing more then repackaged Animism no?

    What we cannot explain now or what is complex to explain now, aka the eye is the cause of a "designer" is the same functional principle as why ancient people (and some today) believe that the rains were caused by the Rain God. Can't explain = Supernatural caused it. There is no reason to accept Intelligent Design if you reject that Zeus doesn't throw lightning bolts.
    Belief that in the end science will explain everything and that everything is explainable through natural law and science is in and of itself faith. One may say "But history shows us many things people attribute to gods to be found to be natural through science". Yes, that is true in many...not all...cases thus far. At the same time, science itself is not falliable. There has been numerous scientific theories and even things believed to be scientific facts that have been found later to be false.

    What it truly comes down to, at the end of it all, is both sides. Either faith/belief that there is something greater than the natural world of which we can not fully comprehend, or faith/belief that everything and anything within the universe is absolutely provable and absolutely natural with anything beyond that completely out of the realm of possability.

    I reject this idiotic notion that somehow one form of belief is better or worse than the other. My only contention would be is that once one belief or the other is somehow found to be wrong...such as the notion that Zeus throws down lightening bolts...that continuing to hold that exact belief after that fact is rather foolish. However, we are no where near a point of answering that unquestionably prove the removal of all that is supernatural, so until such a point that science completely and utterly wins out it still boils down, without question to one thing.

    Belief.

    Forgive me if I don't care about those arrogant enough to believe their belief is better than others. I'm not a fan of extreme fundamentalists...be they christian, islamic, agnostic, or athiest.

  4. #44
    blond bombshell

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    10-19-12 @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Belief that in the end science will explain everything and that everything is explainable through natural law and science is in and of itself faith. One may say "But history shows us many things people attribute to gods to be found to be natural through science". Yes, that is true in many...not all...cases thus far. At the same time, science itself is not falliable. There has been numerous scientific theories and even things believed to be scientific facts that have been found later to be false.

    What it truly comes down to, at the end of it all, is both sides. Either faith/belief that there is something greater than the natural world of which we can not fully comprehend, or faith/belief that everything and anything within the universe is absolutely provable and absolutely natural with anything beyond that completely out of the realm of possability.

    I reject this idiotic notion that somehow one form of belief is better or worse than the other. My only contention would be is that once one belief or the other is somehow found to be wrong...such as the notion that Zeus throws down lightening bolts...that continuing to hold that exact belief after that fact is rather foolish. However, we are no where near a point of answering that unquestionably prove the removal of all that is supernatural, so until such a point that science completely and utterly wins out it still boils down, without question to one thing.

    Belief.

    Forgive me if I don't care about those arrogant enough to believe their belief is better than others. I'm not a fan of extreme fundamentalists...be they christian, islamic, agnostic, or athiest.
    Science has won 100s of these arguement magic has won none.Interesting you bring up that zeus doesent throw down lightning bolts.Christians still blame natural disasters on things like homosexuality.To be fair the bible backs up these claims too.
    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

  5. #45
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Belief that in the end science will explain everything and that everything is explainable through natural law and science is in and of itself faith. One may say "But history shows us many things people attribute to gods to be found to be natural through science". Yes, that is true in many...not all...cases thus far. At the same time, science itself is not falliable. There has been numerous scientific theories and even things believed to be scientific facts that have been found later to be false.
    Evolution is not a passing fancy.
    It's 150 years old and With every new branch of science that comes along it's only reconfirmed.
    Carbon Dating (1949), DNA Regression analysis, etc.
    What are the odds carbon and other Isotopic dating would confirm evolution if it wasn't true?

    What it truly comes down to, at the end of it all, is both sides. Either faith/belief that there is something greater than the natural world of which we can not fully comprehend, or faith/belief that everything and anything within the universe is absolutely provable and absolutely natural with anything beyond that completely out of the realm of possability.
    We may never know many things and things we learn will lead to more unknowns.
    Some people will be able to say "we don't know" and other will continue to say "god".

    I reject this idiotic notion that somehow one form of belief is better or worse than the other. ...
    Belief.
    And I reject the the disingenous tactic of 'intellectual equivalence' just attempted, seeking to equate in value lets say, Gravity and Krishna.
    There is Evidence for only ONE of those "beliefs".
    It's either deceptive or inane to try and give them equal weight by calling one merely belief.

    I answered an almost identical Fallacious post just 2 days ago.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/religi...post1058829852

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    You have basic understanding/logic problem or more likely realize you have No case.
    I don't 'believe' in the same thing Scourge does.
    Just we both DON'T believe in what you do. We may have many and differing opinions on ie, abortion.

    If you grew up on a desert island and didn't know or believe in Jesus or Allah.. that's NOT a 'belief' that's a lack of belief.
    Prove 'Jesus' to him.
    You can't.
    But I can prove to him many physical facts such as the earth revolving around the sun.
    That being more than just a 'Belief'.
    That's where you're intentionally trying to HUSTLE everyone here with voodoo.
    [........]
    You're spouting semantic sophistry/complete Nonsense.
    Trying to equate your illogical baseless position (belief/Faith) to those having NO position except that your position is baseless.

    If you can show me evidence of your belief in god/s, as say an evolutionist can show us Fossils, Isotopic dating, and DNA regression analysis, I'd be happy to entertain that. That's more than Mere 'belief'.
    (Not that an Atheist has to be an evolutionist)
    But you have no such evidence.
    Last edited by mbig; 07-02-10 at 11:53 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  6. #46
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Part 2 on Atheism as a belief
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post

    Forgive me if I don't care about those arrogant enough to believe their belief is better than others. I'm not a fan of extreme fundamentalists...be they christian, islamic, agnostic, or athiest.
    Let me quote/Commend poster here C Gerstle; (profile puts him just graduating High School this month!) for the best post I've ever seen in response to the accusation that Atheism is a belief.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/church...post1058758237
    My bolding/highlighting.
    Quote Originally Posted by C Gerstle
    To call atheism a religion is to call bald a hair color.

    To be honest, "atheist" is a word that shouldn't even exist. No one has to acknowledge themselves as a "non-alchemist" or "non-astrologist."

    The word "atheist" only exists because dogmatists outnumber the skeptics in this case.


    However, as Bertrand Russell said in his parable about the celestial teapot, that does not change the burden of proof. In truth, the burden of proof lies with the religious dogmatists. You have to prove to us that God exists, not the other way around.
    Bravo Gerstle for this most Lucid of posts.
    I can only marvel at the intellect of someone who could write that at 18. Or 48 for that matter.
    Last edited by mbig; 07-03-10 at 12:07 AM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  7. #47
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Belief that in the end science will explain everything and that everything is explainable through natural law and science is in and of itself faith.
    Indeed. But that's not my argument. A simple acceptance of "I don't know" is fine rather then jumping to conclusions based on perceived lack of data.

    One may say "But history shows us many things people attribute to gods to be found to be natural through science". Yes, that is true in many...not all...cases thus far. At the same time, science itself is not falliable. There has been numerous scientific theories and even things believed to be scientific facts that have been found later to be false.
    But that still not addressing my argument. I never said science will eventually discover all things. Only that the logic behind Intelligent Design is identical to that behind Animism. If we reject that lighting bolts are from Zeus, we must logically reject that an intelligent designer designed the eye merely because we cannot explain it now. Science cannot explain everything, but that is hardly a reason to accept that some supernatural being is automatically the cause. That's little more then immature impatience. While I fully realize that people have a problem with not knowing, it is a preferable logical stance to hold rather then to assume something without any evidence at all is the true source.

    What it truly comes down to, at the end of it all, is both sides. Either faith/belief that there is something greater than the natural world of which we can not fully comprehend, or faith/belief that everything and anything within the universe is absolutely provable and absolutely natural with anything beyond that completely out of the realm of possability.
    I don't disagree with that but you are still not addressing my point. Not knowing now is not a good reason to assume the supernatural. Could it be? Sure. Could it not be? Sure. But we don't know. To assume that a supernatural origin is the cause because we lack the data is a poor choice of belief that is functionally the same as believing the Rain Gods cause water to pour from the sky. If we reject Animism, how can we logically accept a belief that runs on the same motor just with a different chassis?

    I'm fine with not knowing the answers. I'm not fine with just blindly accepting the supernatural because I don't have the answers.

    I reject this idiotic notion that somehow one form of belief is better or worse than the other.
    Who's notion is that? I'm saying that if we reject the logic of one, we should reject the logic of the other as they are identical. I'm not saying that Animism is better then ID or the reverse. Merely that the logic underlying both is the same and therefore should be rejected equally if we reject the logic under either.

    My only contention would be is that once one belief or the other is somehow found to be wrong...such as the notion that Zeus throws down lightening bolts...that continuing to hold that exact belief after that fact is rather foolish.
    But when the logic that got you there is shown to be faulty, why would we keep holding it? Animism is little more then "Can't explain = Supernatural." That's a pretty awful framework for thinking. In the same way, ID is little more then "Can't explain now or too complex to explain now = designer." Which is functionally the same thinking. We reject the notion of Animism so why not ID?

    However, we are no where near a point of answering that unquestionably prove the removal of all that is supernatural, so until such a point that science completely and utterly wins out it still boils down, without question to one thing.
    But why assume supernatural rather then simply accept we don't know? Or are people just immature to accept that the facts simply may not be available?

    Belief.

    Forgive me if I don't care about those arrogant enough to believe their belief is better than others. I'm not a fan of extreme fundamentalists...be they christian, islamic, agnostic, or athiest.
    I never argued that any one belief is better then another. Merely that if we reject the logic of one, we should do the same to another belief that shares the identical thinking.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #48
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    First off Belief of Faith != Religion

    Second, the notion that a word shouldn't exist is worthless when it does exist. It exists for a reason. That reason being that there is an alternative line of thought and reasoning regarding the notion. You can't just shut your eyes and magic away the fact the word exists and that an enormous amount of the population of the world does have belief in some way shape or form in that which is beyond the natural. You can not magic away those facts any more than those that are faithful can magic away things like evolution or lightening.

    Theists has to prove that there IS the supernatural to end the dispute with Athiests
    Athiests haev to prove that the supernatural is impossible to end th dispute with theists

    Until either completes this both resolve around faith. Faith that there is, or isn't, that which is beyond the natural realm.

  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    But that still not addressing my argument. I never said science will eventually discover all things. Only that the logic behind Intelligent Design is identical to that behind Animism. If we reject that lighting bolts are from Zeus, we must logically reject that an intelligent designer designed the eye merely because we cannot explain it now.
    We must reject lightning bolts are from Zeus because we have undisputable and provable proof as to where lightening bolts come from.

    We do not have undisputable and provable proof that an intelligent designer is not possible.

    You can not relate the two as identical.

    Science cannot explain everything, but that is hardly a reason to accept that some supernatural being is automatically the cause.
    Nope. That is a reason to either have faith that even though science can't explain it, it all still follows natural law OR have the faith that science cannot explain all because there are some things beyond nature.

    or one could just say "I don't know, I don't care" and have no view what so ever, thinking neither side is wrong, neither side is right, and HONESTLY not knowing and not caring. Few people I have ever seen do that. They go "I don't know...." an then proceed to tell you what they think.

    That's little more then immature impatience. While I fully realize that people have a problem with not knowing, it is a preferable logical stance to hold rather then to assume something without any evidence at all is the true source.
    At the same time one could counter that the belief that man can and will be able to explain all of existence if given enough time and resources is supremely arrogant. Ultimately it is either side simply assigning a negative trait to people doing what they dislike.

    I don't disagree with that but you are still not addressing my point. Not knowing now is not a good reason to assume the supernatural. Could it be? Sure. Could it not be? Sure. But we don't know.
    However our condemnation is one sided, showing you yourself are doing the same thing you're accusing others of doing.

    Yes, we don't know...which means one of three things happens. People assume we'll end up knowing or that its natural even if we can't understand it, people assume that it may be supernatural and beyond our understanding, or people honestly don't care and thus either disagree with both of the previous two assumptions or ignore both of the previous two assumptions.

    What people who don't care DON'T do is just insult one of the two assumptions while give a pass to the other. All that does is show that they really do care, and that they fall in one of those two camps.

    To assume that a supernatural origin is the cause because we lack the data is a poor choice of belief that is functionally the same as believing the Rain Gods cause water to pour from the sky. If we reject Animism, how can we logically accept a belief that runs on the same motor just with a different chassis?
    And to assume that anything we can't explain will definitely be explained is to assume Science is infallible, can explain everything, and that its impossible for anything to be supernatural.

    Both are assumptions. Both are based on faith.

    I'm fine with not knowing the answers. I'm not fine with just blindly accepting the supernatural because I don't have the answers.
    No you're not, because you only chastise those that don't know the answer thus believe it to be the supernatural. I've never seen you chastise athiests who state there is no god. I've never seen you chastise those that say everything is natural, nothing is supernatural, everything follows the laws of the universe, or everything is provable through science just not necessarily the science we have today.

    Showing that you're fine not knowing the answers ONLY because you have the faith that the supernatural is impossible and the universe unquestionably 100% follows natural rules.

    Who's notion is that? I'm saying that if we reject the logic of one, we should reject the logic of the other as they are identical. I'm not saying that Animism is better then ID or the reverse. Merely that the logic underlying both is the same and therefore should be rejected equally if we reject the logic under either.
    Portions of animism that has been unquestionably and provably shown to be false should definitely be rejected. Beyond that there's no reason to reject it. A lack of rejection does not suggest a lack of examination. By all means people should continue to try and research the unknown and the supposed supernatural and attempt to explain them and prove them to be natural. I commend anyone that does such a thing. However do not suggest that something that is not proven, that is questionable, is on the same level as something that is without a doubt factually shown to be rue.

    But when the logic that got you there is shown to be faulty, why would we keep holding it? Animism is little more then "Can't explain = Supernatural." That's a pretty awful framework for thinking. In the same way, ID is little more then "Can't explain now or too complex to explain now = designer." Which is functionally the same thinking. We reject the notion of Animism so why not ID?
    To me "Can't explain now = May never be able to explain = May be Supernatural = I believe it to be supernatural" is no worse than "Can't explain now = All things are natural and provable = Science will undoubtably prove it at some point = I believe it can't be supernatural"

    But why assume supernatural rather then simply accept we don't know? Or are people just immature to accept that the facts simply may not be available?
    Thanks for the insult.

    I'd ask the same question to you. Why assume its not supernatural rather then simply accept we don't know? You may SAY that you don't assume such, but your actions would show your dishonesty.

  10. #50
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Scientists Cite Fastest Case of Human Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    We must reject lightning bolts are from Zeus because we have undisputable and provable proof as to where lightening bolts come from.
    Okay, but the belief that lightning bolts came from Zeus is the same logic underlying Intelligent Design.

    We do not have undisputable and provable proof that an intelligent designer is not possible.

    You can not relate the two as identical.
    I never said that an ID is not possible. Only that the logic beneath the belief is the same. What we can/couldn't explain is originated to supernatural causes. You're dealing with specifics of individual beliefs rather then the underlying logic of both.

    Nope. That is a reason to either have faith that even though science can't explain it, it all still follows natural law OR have the faith that science cannot explain all because there are some things beyond nature.
    Come again? Fair enough, it is a reason but is it a good reason? Believing in Christianity to save your soul is different from believing in Christianity because it explains how life came to be.

    or one could just say "I don't know, I don't care" and have no view what so ever, thinking neither side is wrong, neither side is right, and HONESTLY not knowing and not caring. Few people I have ever seen do that. They go "I don't know...." an then proceed to tell you what they think.
    But merely because few people do it does not make it the correct position.

    At the same time one could counter that the belief that man can and will be able to explain all of existence if given enough time and resources is supremely arrogant. Ultimately it is either side simply assigning a negative trait to people doing what they dislike.
    How is accepting that you don't know equate to that? Not knowing and accepting not knowing means you don't know if it is super natural or nature. It merely means you have not accepted those choices and instead settled upon simply not knowing.

    However our condemnation is one sided, showing you yourself are doing the same thing you're accusing others of doing.
    Come again? All I'm saying is if we reject the logic of Animism, why would we accept it in Intelligent Design? You seem to be fine with accepting the framework that what cannot be explained is therefore supernatural. If I cannot explain how my microwave works, does that mean God causes my food to get hot? Ignorance is hardly a good foundation for belief in the supernatural.

    Yes, we don't know...which means one of three things happens. People assume we'll end up knowing or that its natural even if we can't understand it, people assume that it may be supernatural and beyond our understanding, or people honestly don't care and thus either disagree with both of the previous two assumptions or ignore both of the previous two assumptions.
    For the most part yes. But you are assuming that people are unable to accept that they don't know and won't know. The position of agnostics right now suggests your position is inaccurate, that people can indeed hold a position other then the ones you claimed to exist. Merely because most people act in the fashion you describe (I don't contest that) does not mean those are the only choices.

    What people who don't care DON'T do is just insult one of the two assumptions while give a pass to the other. All that does is show that they really do care, and that they fall in one of those two camps.
    Since when did not knowing always equate to not caring? That's a fairly large assumption you've made and assumed to be true.

    And to assume that anything we can't explain will definitely be explained is to assume Science is infallible, can explain everything, and that its impossible for anything to be supernatural.
    Why do you keep going back to something I never argued or said? Perhaps you have confused me with another user?

    Again, my whole argument is if we reject the logic of Animism, how can we accept the same logic in Intelligent Design? I have not argued anything else, despite your belief that I have. Please reexamine my first post relevant to this discussion:
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058834272

    No you're not, because you only chastise those that don't know the answer thus believe it to be the supernatural. I've never seen you chastise athiests who state there is no god.
    I don't chastise people who say there is a God either. You left that out. I go after specific beliefs. I can't prove one God exists or another one does or the God I believe in exists. Nor can I disprove any others. What I can do is deal with specific beliefs that people hold. You either don't see those posts or are confusing me with someone else. From what I see, the atheists here are arguing the validity of evolution, which has been commercially proven in tangible products as proof that evolution is true and creationism is garbage. I don't see them regularly arguing that science will answer everything as you claim they have. Did anyone even argue that here at all? There's a difference between arguing the theory of evolution is true and that science will answer everything. Could evolution be the result of the supernatural? Absolutely, but arguing evolution is true is hardly the argument you are making.

    I've never seen you chastise those that say everything is natural, nothing is supernatural, everything follows the laws of the universe, or everything is provable through science just not necessarily the science we have today.
    Where did anyone say everything is natural? I think you are confusing me with someone else. If you look at my posts in this subforum, it's always about specific beliefs held within a religion. Not that one God is false or one religion is entirely true.

    Showing that you're fine not knowing the answers ONLY because you have the faith that the supernatural is impossible and the universe unquestionably 100% follows natural rules.
    Then why did I say I was a Deist several times? Hardly what you make me out to be. I think you have me confused with someone else.

    Portions of animism that has been unquestionably and provably shown to be false should definitely be rejected. Beyond that there's no reason to reject it. A lack of rejection does not suggest a lack of examination.
    Beyond that? Why should we accept a belief that automatically assumes Supernatural? That's basically what your argument is saying. While specific Aniministic beliefs are wrong, the core logic isn't faulty. Do you understand everything? No. Do you assume God is the cause for what you don't understand? No. That's why Animism is crap.

    However do not suggest that something that is not proven, that is questionable, is on the same level as something that is without a doubt factually shown to be true.
    Again, you are focusing entirely on specific Animism beliefs rather then looking at its logic. Please discuss what I said.

    To me "Can't explain now = May never be able to explain = May be Supernatural = I believe it to be supernatural" is no worse than "Can't explain now = All things are natural and provable = Science will undoubtably prove it at some point = I believe it can't be supernatural"
    Fair enough, but that doesn't address my point.

    The logic between ID and Animism is the same. Why should we accept or reject only one?

    I'd ask the same question to you. Why assume its not supernatural rather then simply accept we don't know? You may SAY that you don't assume such, but your actions would show your dishonesty.
    What actions? You are confusing me with someone else. Just because I don't know does mean I think God as the first thought. What does the evidence suggest? If the evidence is inconclusive, go get more evidence. Until then, you accept you don't know. Just because you can't explain now doesn't equate to Goddidit.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •