Evolution is a Lie

[Outer Haven]

because there is absolutely no difference between him, his parents or some one from 6000 years ago.

big human, little human, its still human

How can you say that?! People can have various differences even today, how can you not notice that? For one, I feel pretty different from my parents -- both physically (well, not much, really) and especially personality-wise.

[AncientChild]

And where is your proof that these are actually god's words?   


Oh yeah it is in the same book, written by the same people... rofl  You do see the difference in the standard of proof you "apply" to your own position, compared to evolution.

I feel ya.  Sometimes coming to this site makes me wonder if the Illuminati have the right idea.  Makes my inner misanthrope act all crazy.

[Dok]

How can you say that?! People can have various differences even today, how can you not notice that? For one, I feel pretty different from my parents -- both physically (well, not much, really) and especially personality-wise.

still exactly the same, personality has no role in evolution. Sorry.

The Okapi from "50 million" years ago are exactly the same as the Okapi of today. 

[InfoArsenal]

Creationism isn't valid science because it assumes everything based on faith and tries to fit the world to it.

Evolution does have a lot of holes in it, especially since it cannot even explain life or viral activity--plus Darwin's original writings explain evolution by virtue and that sin is what keeps certain races from evolving and remaining primitive.

If you haven't read Darwin's writings in their entirety its stupid to argue for evolution so I'd recommend reading them.

Also how does a dinosaur turn into a bird, yet we still have sharks and crocodiles in roughly the same condition?  It's one thing to change size, but grow feathers and start flying while many other species remain roughly the same? How does a dinosaur's DNA decide to evolve into wings that are capable of flight over millions of years (especially since they will be a cumbersome hindrance in the meantime)?

[Dok]

Creationism isn't valid science because it assumes everything based on faith and tries to fit the world to it.

Evolution does have a lot of holes in it, especially since it cannot even explain life or viral activity--plus Darwin's original writings explain evolution by virtue and that sin is what keeps certain races from evolving and remaining primitive.

If you haven't read Darwin's writings in their entirety its stupid to argue for evolution so I'd recommend reading them.

Also how does a dinosaur turn into a bird, yet we still have sharks and crocodiles in roughly the same condition?  It's one thing to change size, but grow feathers and start flying while many other species remain roughly the same? How does a dinosaur's DNA decide to evolve into wings that are capable of flight over millions of years (especially since they will be a cumbersome hindrance in the meantime)?

evolution is based on faith.

[Outer Haven]

evolution is based on faith.

I'm not denying that, nor how evolutionism is connected to eugenics/NWO, but saying evolution doesn't exist would be a little too much, I would say...

Although sometimes when I see the rampant evolutionist propaganda (like all that, "WE HAVE FINALLY FOUND THE MISSING LINK!!!", for instance), I wonder if people like you may be unto something...

[sherlock]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=211440

Check the link. A very interesting point raised by a mathematician who postulates that 'logic' or 'reason' are essentially faith-based because they rely on unproven axioms to form theorems...logic and reason are the cornerstone of science and the foundation upon which atheists seek their shelter...it seems that this foundation itself rests on faith as much as belief in God does....however theists also have faith in reason whereas atheists have no faith in a god.

He also speaks about instances where theorems assumed to be correct have been plugged/altered because a logician later on down the line has found error. If there are no absolutes in math, there are no absolutes at all, it seems.

Essentially this would mean that everybody starts from a faith-based position and depending on that position all evidence is viewed in a way that fits that particular world view.


AXIOM - In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

Wikipedia


I don't think many people deny the existence of evolution - they just deny that everything arose by pure chance (apparently the combined probability of this is quite low anyway) and that there wasn't a First Cause. They believe in evolution by Supernatural selection, and i guess some people just don't like the idea of being advanced forms of monkeys clinging to a big rock that's spinning across the universe for no reason, until one day something gets in the way and it's obliterated, because something happened to be there.

[Dok]

I'm not denying that, nor how evolutionism is connected to eugenics/NWO, but saying evolution doesn't exist would be a little too much, I would say...

Although sometimes when I see the rampant evolutionist propaganda (like all that, "WE HAVE FINALLY FOUND THE MISSING LINK!!!", for instance), I wonder if people like you may be unto something...

so then you agree, its a religious belief.

[InfoArsenal]

evolution is based on faith.

No, evolution is a theory and theories are based on questioning.

Creationism has no questioning--its all assumption.

[Dok]

No, evolution is a theory and theories are based on questioning.

Creationism has no questioning--its all assumption.

uhm, so does evolution. Its all based on faith, as none of it is provable, by the scientific method. Heck it requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does anything else.

all radiometric dating works by faith also.

[InfoArsenal]

uhm, so does evolution. Its all based on faith, as none of it is provable, by the scientific method. Heck it requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does anything else.

all radiometric dating works by faith also.

No, you're wrong.

Even if neither were provable you still have a question with theory that you do not have with faith.

You're assuming that since a theory exists it must be accepted on faith, but a theory is just questioning.

A quick example...

I theorize the towers were blown apart by nano-thermite.

You have faith God/Satan did it.

I can perform tests to help determine what destroyed the building.

You have faith God/Satan did it.

I compare notes and interview experts.

You have faith God/Satan did it.

etc,etc

[Dok]

No, you're wrong.

Even if neither were provable you still have a question with theory that you do not have with faith.

You're assuming that since a theory exists it must be accepted on faith, but a theory is just questioning.

A quick example...

I theorize the towers were blown apart by nano-thermite.

You have faith God/Satan did it.

I can perform tests to help determine what destroyed the building.

You have faith God/Satan did it.

I compare notes and interview experts.

You have faith God/Satan did it.

etc,etc

  OH MAN, thats to much. Those tests, that you are espousing are based on faith. too much.

For starters, no one has ever seen anything change. No one has ever found an intermidiate fossil. to which Darwin said we'd find all over, or his theory was crap Evolution by its very premises has to keep going and constantly happening, well it doesn't. It even got so bad that Scientists came out and said it was all over and were are the pinnacle of life.   Please.

Its a religious belief perpetrated by the priests of the white lab coat.

in the beginning was nothing, and nothing exploded.  

[Outer Haven]

Of course there are absolutes in mathematics. Would you for a moment doubt that 2+2=4? OK, let's assume you say even that is not certain. So you say:
"No statement can be absolute."

Now, is the above statement absolute? If yes, then there is something absolute; if not, then you cannot be sure if there are absolute statements...

I would like to point out that in mathematics the word 'theory' has a very different meaning from that which is associated with it when speaking, for example, of the theory of evolution. In mathematics a (formal) theory is a system of axioms from which you derive theorems by means of logical rules. The axioms are not something you assume to be "true"; it's more like the theory is an imaginary world that you examine (or at least that's one way to look at it; I personally think that some things are absolute, like 2+2=4, and that mathematics consists of finding out those absolute truths).

Just wanted to say that.

so then you agree, its a religious belief.

Of course, to a certain agree.

[InfoArsenal]

OH MAN, thats to much. Those tests, that you are espousing are based on faith. too much.

For starters, no one has ever seen anything change. No one has ever found an intermidiate fossil. to which Darwin said we'd find all over, or his theory was crap Evolution by its very premises has to keep going and constantly happening, well it doesn't. It even got so bad that Scientists came out and said it was all over and were are the pinnacle of life.   Please.

Its a religious belief perpetrated by the priests of the white lab coat.

in the beginning was nothing, and nothing exploded.  

You're assuming I believe in evolution because I don't believe in creationism.

There are people who follow evolution as a religion, but that does not make theory = religion.

This is akin to claiming 'Truthers believe ray guns destroyed the towers, thus 9/11 truth = fiction'

[Dok]

Of course there are absolutes in mathematics. Would you for a moment doubt that 2+2=4? OK, let's assume you say even that is not certain. So you say:
"No statement can be absolute."

Now, is the above statement absolute? If yes, then there is something absolute; if not, then you cannot be sure if there are absolute statements...

I would like to point out that in mathematics the word 'theory' has a very different meaning from that which is associated with it when speaking, for example, of the theory of evolution. In mathematics a (formal) theory is a system of axioms from which you derive theorems by means of logical rules. The axioms are not something you assume to be "true"; it's more like the theory is an imaginary world that you examine (or at least that's one way to look at it; I personally think that some things are absolute, like 2+2=4, and that mathematics consists of finding out those absolute truths).

Just wanted to say that.
Of course, to a certain agree.

I have no qualms in dealing with absolutes, or science. When science stays as science. Thats why there are specific rules that govern science.

[Dok]

You're assuming I believe in evolution because I don't believe in creationism.

There are people who follow evolution as a religion, but that does not make theory = religion.

This is akin to claiming 'Truthers believe ray guns destroyed the towers, thus 9/11 truth = fiction'

when you perpetuate an unprovable idea as fact, that is religion. Science by its very nature has to deal in provable facts. Kids are taught today to believe that evolution is indeed a fact and further taught to never question the findings. This is called indoctrination. The very concept of all the evolution theory lies outside the bounds of Science.

There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution." Anybody care to show the evidence that proves anything but number six???

1. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen

2. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space, and matter

3. Stellar and planetary evolution - the origin of stars and planets

4. Organic evolution - origin of life from inanimate matter

5. Macro-evolution - origin of major kinds

6. Micro-evolution - variations with kinds.

Only Micro-evolution has been shown evidence and I also believe that only this one can be proven. The other 5 are all included and assumed however there is no evidence.

assume: to take as granted or true : suppose <I assume he'll be there> IE:faith.

[Outer Haven]

Science by its very nature has to deal in provable facts.

In that case, the only real science is mathematics. You can't really logically proof that, I don't know, the Moon exists...

[InfoArsenal]

when you perpetuate an unprovable idea as fact, that is religion. Science by its very nature has to deal in provable facts. Kids are taught today to believe that evolution is indeed a fact and further taught to never question the findings. This is called indoctrination. The very concept of all the evolution theory lies outside the bounds of Science.

assume: to take as granted or true : suppose <I assume he'll be there> IE:faith.

Science is not about facts, its about discovery through questioning.

Facts are always changing and science acknowledges this.

You seem to be justifying the worst of the intellectual community by claiming their fanaticism in science is similar to your fanaticism in God...

It would be good to remember that the Dark Ages ended because Godly people questioned the world.

[Dok]

In that case, the only real science is mathematics. You can't really logically proof that, I don't know, the Moon exists...

Thats not true at all, your just being facetious. 

[Dok]

Science is not about facts, its about discovery through questioning.

Facts are always changing and science acknowledges this.

You seem to be justifying the worst of the intellectual community by claiming their fanaticism in science is similar to your fanaticism in God...

It would be good to remember that the Dark Ages ended because Godly people questioned the world.

No its about facts. And the Dark Ages were only in Europe, and all they did was rediscover stuff that was already known and not forgotten in the rest of the world. 

[sherlock]

I've forwarded the "absolute truth" point to the logician who postulated that there are no absolutes...so he can better explain the 2+2...

Somebody asked a similar question to which he replied...

"In a mathematical system of different axioms, 2+2 does equal 5. And these axioms are taken on faith, so I don't know either way whether 2+2=4 or 5.

But essentially mathematical language has no connection to reality. It's just a symbol manipulation game. The number 2 does not exist."

The reason that you see the moon is because of faith, namely faith in empirical evidence (the senses) and reason (logic).

Axioms are taken on faith, we believe them but we don't have a reason to believe them (otherwise they wouldn't be axioms!).

We actually have had to CHANGE the axioms MANY times BECAUSE we found contradictions. If you can show that a contradiction follows from a valid manipulation of axioms, then you are logically able to prove anything as a consequence. It's a rule. This has happened many times in mathematics, and mathematicians have had to revise the axioms to make sure that contradiction cannot come up. We keep plugging along until another contradiction comes up, then we revise the axioms some more. This makes is pretty obvious that the axioms have nothing to do with truth.

"This is nothing more than a clash of two faiths. You have faith in reason, thus you will use reason to "prove" certain conclusions that contradict a given religion. Others have faith in the religion, and so they will find some of their beliefs, namely the "word of God" contradict reason. You think they are foolish because you so obviously "proved" them wrong. However, they think you are so foolish because you think your human logic is superior to the "word of God". Do you see what's going on? You have faith in the axioms of standard logic; they have faith in the axiom called God; and you derive contradictions between them. How to know which is right and which is wrong? You cannot provide a logical argument because that's the subject of the debate! And the religious fellow cannot cite a verse from his holy text for the same reason!"


In the case of evolution the primary axiom seems to concern the First Cause, and that's a matter of faith as with all axioms.

[Outer Haven]

Thats not true at all, your just being facetious. 

You never really prove facts (theories) in natural science; you just confront them with evidence. If the evidence agrees, it makes the theory plausible but it's not a proof.

[Dok]

You never really prove facts (theories) in natural science; you just confront them with evidence. If the evidence agrees, it makes the theory plausible but it's not a proof.

thats why we have the scientific method. I can prove that an open flame is hot by repeatedly sticking my finger in it. Thus prooving that my hypothesis is correct. Its only through repeated testing thta confirms ones hypothesis.

You cannot test evolution. Oh wait a minute. They did develop a test for evolution, by using fruit flys. Can you guess what the answer was to those millions of poor fruit flys?

[sherlock]

mutated flies that died?

[Dok]

mutated flies that died?

poor creatures, generations sacrificed.  and all they ever did was get a normal fruit fly. 

[sherlock]

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.php

Interesting site..though i'm sure there's an darwinismrefuted-debunked.com too!!

Ah well.

[sherlock]

Oh, as promised ...the response for Outer Haven

Quote:
Of course there are absolutes in mathematics. Would you for a moment doubt that 2+2=4? OK, let's assume you say even that is not certain. So you say:
"No statement can be absolute."


You're misinterpreting the spirit of mathematics, that is, mathematics has NO connection to truth in any way, shape, or form. Mathematics is simply, SIMPLY, precise manipulation of symbols according to rules, THAT'S IT. More precisely, mathematics is the manipulation of axioms sets with precise rules. In pure mathematics, the statement "2+2=4" follows from a particular "mainstream" set of axioms that "make sense", though the choice of this axiom set is only preferred because it seems to correlate with common sense. One could just as easily define an axiom set that gives 2+2=$, or 2+2=2. I've taken a math course where we actually precisely defined addition; we said it was a function that took in an ordered pair and spit out the sum. If we defined addition differently, 2+2 could equal anything.

In this way ALL statements in mathematics are contingent on the axioms set and set of rules being employed. They are not absolute, and if they were the term "absolute" wouldn't have any connection to reality anyway. So when I say all the axioms in mathematics (more generally logic) are taken on faith, that's because no logical process can lead you to believe one over another. That defeats the purpose of the axioms themselves.

Quote:

Now, is the above statement absolute? If yes, then there is something absolute; if not, then you cannot be sure if there are absolute statements...

This is more for the realm of philosophy. You can, in principle, doubt anything. But, like you point out, how can I say this knowing that I can also doubt the act of doubting itself? I don't see any conclusion except that you become so skeptical that you are skeptical of being skeptical. Essentially man knows nothing certain, not even his uncertainty. It is the abyss, the dilemma of all human life. Thus you have religion to cling to, it's a savior.


Quote:
I would like to point out that in mathematics the word 'theory' has a very different meaning from that which is associated with it when speaking, for example, of the theory of evolution. In mathematics a (formal) theory is a system of axioms from which you derive theorems by means of logical rules. The axioms are not something you assume to be "true"; it's more like the theory is an imaginary world that you examine (or at least that's one way to look at it; I personally think that some things are absolute, like 2+2=4, and that mathematics consists of finding out those absolute truths).

That's all right, except for the end. You can personally meditate about the meaning of mathematics on your own, we all do, but from a formalist point of view there is no meaning except for what we inject into it (of course this is true for all domains). Math has no connection to truth. The number 2 does not exist.


I suspect if you speak to a chemist/biologist/physicist...they'll be able to show you the axioms which dominate their domain. The most obvious one when it comes to evolution is, as mentioned before, the First Cause.

No matter which side of the fence you choose to stand, no matter which axiom you choose to accept, they are all faith-based...otherwise they simply wouldn't be axioms.

[Outer Haven]

Oh, as promised ...the response for Outer Haven

Quote:
Of course there are absolutes in mathematics. Would you for a moment doubt that 2+2=4? OK, let's assume you say even that is not certain. So you say:
"No statement can be absolute."


You're misinterpreting the spirit of mathematics, that is, mathematics has NO connection to truth in any way, shape, or form. Mathematics is simply, SIMPLY, precise manipulation of symbols according to rules, THAT'S IT. More precisely, mathematics is the manipulation of axioms sets with precise rules. In pure mathematics, the statement "2+2=4" follows from a particular "mainstream" set of axioms that "make sense", though the choice of this axiom set is only preferred because it seems to correlate with common sense. One could just as easily define an axiom set that gives 2+2=$, or 2+2=2. I've taken a math course where we actually precisely defined addition; we said it was a function that took in an ordered pair and spit out the sum. If we defined addition differently, 2+2 could equal anything.

In this way ALL statements in mathematics are contingent on the axioms set and set of rules being employed. They are not absolute, and if they were the term "absolute" wouldn't have any connection to reality anyway. So when I say all the axioms in mathematics (more generally logic) are taken on faith, that's because no logical process can lead you to believe one over another. That defeats the purpose of the axioms themselves.

Quote:

Now, is the above statement absolute? If yes, then there is something absolute; if not, then you cannot be sure if there are absolute statements...

This is more for the realm of philosophy. You can, in principle, doubt anything. But, like you point out, how can I say this knowing that I can also doubt the act of doubting itself? I don't see any conclusion except that you become so skeptical that you are skeptical of being skeptical. Essentially man knows nothing certain, not even his uncertainty. It is the abyss, the dilemma of all human life. Thus you have religion to cling to, it's a savior.


Quote:
I would like to point out that in mathematics the word 'theory' has a very different meaning from that which is associated with it when speaking, for example, of the theory of evolution. In mathematics a (formal) theory is a system of axioms from which you derive theorems by means of logical rules. The axioms are not something you assume to be "true"; it's more like the theory is an imaginary world that you examine (or at least that's one way to look at it; I personally think that some things are absolute, like 2+2=4, and that mathematics consists of finding out those absolute truths).

That's all right, except for the end. You can personally meditate about the meaning of mathematics on your own, we all do, but from a formalist point of view there is no meaning except for what we inject into it (of course this is true for all domains). Math has no connection to truth. The number 2 does not exist.


I suspect if you speak to a chemist/biologist/physicist...they'll be able to show you the axioms which dominate their domain. The most obvious one when it comes to evolution is, as mentioned before, the First Cause.

No matter which side of the fence you choose to stand, no matter which axiom you choose to accept, they are all faith-based...otherwise they simply wouldn't be axioms.

So basically you're a formalist. I'm a platonist. I believe that yes, there is Absolute Truth, but of course there has to be a clear distinction between something that's absolutely true, regardless if anybody knows it and absolute certainty -- that is, knowing that something is true. Of course, this introduces the element of faith or metaphysics, if you will, and some people don't like it. But I personally feel you can never avoid it. And I also think formalists are kind of hypocritical when they say how supposedly nothing in mathematics exists, and it's all just symbol manipulation, because then you can ask, "So how do you know symbols exist? How do you know manipulating them is real?", and I'm not sure what would be their response, but this to me shows how this element of faith is inevitable in mathematics. In fact, I believe, manipulating symbols amounts to arithmetic, so believing in symbols and not believing in numbers doesn't make sense to me.

Then you can hear some people even say how, in the end, not even these basic operations are certain; "nothing is certain, not even logic", which doesn't make sense when the same people are forced to use it in their "reasonings", it's inevitable. And then it goes:

"Nothing is certain. It's not even certain that nothing is certain. And the preceding statement isn't certain, either. And the same about the preceding one. And the preceding...  [Then, after infinitely many statements:] None of the preceding statements are certain. etc."

This doesn't lead anywhere. Obviously, there must be something that we should be able to hang onto. I know there are fundamental problems with this when, for instance, you can assume either an axiom or its negation, and both versions are equiconsistent, but to this I say: just because we don't know which one is true, doesn't mean neither is. Do you understand what I'm saying?

[sherlock]

Quote:
"So basically you're a formalist. I'm a platonist. I believe that yes, there is Absolute Truth, but of course there has to be a clear distinction between something that's absolutely true, regardless if anybody knows it and absolute certainty -- that is, knowing that something is true.

Of course, and I think most people, including me, would agree that absolute certainty is a romance and unattainable. Things can always be doubted.


Quote:
Of course, this introduces the element of faith or metaphysics, if you will, and some people don't like it. But I personally feel you can never avoid it.

Right, that's my point. If you believe math has connection to reality, then it is faith based.

Quote:
And I also think formalists are kind of hypocritical when they say how supposedly nothing in mathematics exists, and it's all just symbol manipulation, because then you can ask, "So how do you know symbols exist? How do you know manipulating them is real?", and I'm not sure what would be their response, but this to me shows how this element of faith is inevitable in mathematics. In fact, I believe, manipulating symbols amounts to arithmetic, so believing in symbols and not believing in numbers doesn't make sense to me.

Symbol's don't exist; rather pen ink exists, pencil lead exists, chalk dust exists. The symbols are our interpretations of these things when placed in aesthetically pleasing ways. And also, I don't know what formalists you talk to, but my opinion is not to replace faith in numbers with faith in symbols. I don't want to replace it with anything. This amounts math to a game, simply a game that we play for fun. I do math for enjoyment and speculation, but I do not connect it to truth.

Quote:
Then you can hear some people even say how, in the end, not even these basic operations are certain; "nothing is certain, not even logic", which doesn't make sense when the same people are forced to use it in their "reasonings", it's inevitable. And then it goes:

"Nothing is certain. It's not even certain that nothing is certain. And the preceding statement isn't certain, either. And the same about the preceding one. And the preceding... [Then, after infinitely many statements:] None of the preceding statements are certain. etc."

Right.

Quote:
This doesn't lead anywhere. Obviously, there must be something that we should be able to hang onto.

How is that in anyway obvious? What what does it mean to be obvious in the first place, what are the implications of "obvious"? Infinite regression is unavoidable if one is to critically doubt what he sees (metaphorically speaking). The only way to "escape" the chain is by a leap of faith. Hence religion, reason, etc.

Quote:
I know there are fundamental problems with this when, for instance, you can assume either an axiom or its negation, and both versions are equiconsistent, but to this I say: just because we don't know which one is true, doesn't mean neither is. Do you understand what I'm saying?"

I do, but you must remember that all of your arguments and attempts to convince anyone of anything are based in your logical reasoning. It really makes communicating a silly thing, but I think that's the way it is.


We use reason/logic to explain reason/logic...which stems from rules/axioms which are faith-based by definition.
Thus..all parties...begin..at faith...one follows the axiom of God...the other follows reason
except..those who have faith in God...can also have faith in reason...but not the other way around...perhaps.

[AncientChild]

YOU ARE ALL WRONG. I CREATED YOU ALL IN MY MOTHER'S BATHTUB.

[Outer Haven]

Quote:
"So basically you're a formalist. I'm a platonist. I believe that yes, there is Absolute Truth, but of course there has to be a clear distinction between something that's absolutely true, regardless if anybody knows it and absolute certainty -- that is, knowing that something is true.

Of course, and I think most people, including me, would agree that absolute certainty is a romance and unattainable. Things can always be doubted.


Quote:
Of course, this introduces the element of faith or metaphysics, if you will, and some people don't like it. But I personally feel you can never avoid it.

Right, that's my point. If you believe math has connection to reality, then it is faith based.

Quote:
And I also think formalists are kind of hypocritical when they say how supposedly nothing in mathematics exists, and it's all just symbol manipulation, because then you can ask, "So how do you know symbols exist? How do you know manipulating them is real?", and I'm not sure what would be their response, but this to me shows how this element of faith is inevitable in mathematics. In fact, I believe, manipulating symbols amounts to arithmetic, so believing in symbols and not believing in numbers doesn't make sense to me.

Symbol's don't exist; rather pen ink exists, pencil lead exists, chalk dust exists. The symbols are our interpretations of these things when placed in aesthetically pleasing ways. And also, I don't know what formalists you talk to, but my opinion is not to replace faith in numbers with faith in symbols. I don't want to replace it with anything. This amounts math to a game, simply a game that we play for fun. I do math for enjoyment and speculation, but I do not connect it to truth.

Quote:
Then you can hear some people even say how, in the end, not even these basic operations are certain; "nothing is certain, not even logic", which doesn't make sense when the same people are forced to use it in their "reasonings", it's inevitable. And then it goes:

"Nothing is certain. It's not even certain that nothing is certain. And the preceding statement isn't certain, either. And the same about the preceding one. And the preceding... [Then, after infinitely many statements:] None of the preceding statements are certain. etc."

Right.

Quote:
This doesn't lead anywhere. Obviously, there must be something that we should be able to hang onto.

How is that in anyway obvious? What what does it mean to be obvious in the first place, what are the implications of "obvious"? Infinite regression is unavoidable if one is to critically doubt what he sees (metaphorically speaking). The only way to "escape" the chain is by a leap of faith. Hence religion, reason, etc.

Quote:
I know there are fundamental problems with this when, for instance, you can assume either an axiom or its negation, and both versions are equiconsistent, but to this I say: just because we don't know which one is true, doesn't mean neither is. Do you understand what I'm saying?"

I do, but you must remember that all of your arguments and attempts to convince anyone of anything are based in your logical reasoning. It really makes communicating a silly thing, but I think that's the way it is.


We use reason/logic to explain reason/logic...which stems from rules/axioms which are faith-based by definition.
Thus..all parties...begin..at faith...one follows the axiom of God...the other follows reason
except..those who have faith in God...can also have faith in reason...but not the other way around...perhaps.

Whatever... I don't think I can really convince anybody, though I feel very strongly this way.

[kushfiend]

didn't hitler use evolution as justification to the slaughter of millions?

[Dok]

didn't hitler use evolution as justification to the slaughter of millions?

yes he did.

[Outer Haven]

If evolution turns out to be a hoax... HOLY SMOKES...!! Then that would prove people can be led to believe just about anything, no matter how ridiculous it is! 

Well, we've already seen that with 9/11 and global warming... But THIS...

Most of my life, I simply accepted evolution as a given fact, as something obvious (and I still do, to an extent). But now I realise how nearly everything we are taught in schools is mere indoctrination, absent of any critical thinking.

I don't want to take sides in this argument, but I think it teaches us to think for ourselves, and always question established dogmas.

[Dok]

If evolution turns out to be a hoax... HOLY SMOKES...!! Then that would prove people can be led to believe just about anything, no matter how ridiculous it is! 

Well, we've already seen that with 9/11 and global warming... But THIS...

Most of my life, I simply accepted evolution as a given fact, as something obvious (and I still do, to an extent). But now I realise how nearly everything we are taught in schools is mere indoctrination, absent of any critical thinking.

I don't want to take sides in this argument, but I think it teaches us to think for ourselves, and always question established dogmas.

see beyond the white lab coat.