|
|
#32
02-14-2007, 11:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Rephrasing My Point
[ QUOTE ]
You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow. If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now? [/ QUOTE ] I think your message was clear the first time. But I still don't see how it possibly says anything about non-creationist theists. To use your example, "You" could have, a long time ago, blessed the citizens of this planet with your poker insights. Today it plays out as simply experience; but it's experience upon the catalyst that you gave them. 
|
|
#33
02-18-2007, 06:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists
[ QUOTE ]
You simply can't stamp out darkness. You just light a candle and it goes away. In other words: you Enlighten. Light is a positive force that darkness has no power over. Fighting darkness, substantiates darkness. [/ QUOTE ] Wonderful.
|
|
#34
02-18-2007, 06:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You simply can't stamp out darkness. You just light a candle and it goes away. In other words: you Enlighten. Light is a positive force that darkness has no power over. Fighting darkness, substantiates darkness. [/ QUOTE ] Wonderful. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed... the light of rationalism!
|
|
#35
02-18-2007, 07:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You simply can't stamp out darkness. You just light a candle and it goes away. In other words: you Enlighten. Light is a positive force that darkness has no power over. Fighting darkness, substantiates darkness. [/ QUOTE ] Wonderful. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed... the light of rationalism! [/ QUOTE ] I'll go as far as saying that rationalism is one terminal the filament of enlightenment is attached to. Just not both terminals - absolute values aren't rational.
|
|
#36
02-19-2007, 01:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists
Evolution... is... a farce... MIT no longer assumes evolution because it is mathematically impossible for this many mutations (beneficial ones at that)to occur in a time and manner that would account for the creatures we see now. Evolution is a new religion
|
|
#37
02-19-2007, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution... is... a farce... MIT no longer assumes evolution because it is mathematically impossible for this many mutations (beneficial ones at that)to occur in a time and manner that would account for the creatures we see now. Evolution is a new religion [/ QUOTE ] Most blatant troll ever?
|
|
#38
02-19-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the two most ignorant things to say is that God and the Devil absolutley do not exist. [/ QUOTE ] Do you feel the same way when someone says unicorns dont exist?
|
|
#39
02-20-2007, 08:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Evolutionists MUST Be Semi Atheists
[ QUOTE ]
Evolution... is... a farce... MIT no longer assumes evolution because it is mathematically impossible for this many mutations (beneficial ones at that)to occur in a time and manner that would account for the creatures we see now. Evolution is a new religion [/ QUOTE ] You sure about that? Because I'm sitting in a lab at MIT right now, and we mentioned evolution in class no less than 6 times yesterday.
|
|
#40
06-30-2007, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Rephrasing My Point
[ QUOTE ]
You go to a planet where everybody constantly plays poker but no poker books exist. They all have IQs of 110. You encounter some great players. The first 500 of them show you how experience got them to where they are. You now encounter an even better player who makes plays in rare situations such that it is hard to see how experience could have led him to make them. But since he isn't smart enough to figure them out logically, the assumption must be made that somehow his experience did lead him to these plays. But only because we are sure that the Theory of Poker does not exist on this planet. If that was even a small possibility then it would have to be a reasonable alternative explanation for the plays of this one fellow. If you are so sure his great plays evolved from his experience just because so many others have, then you must necessarily be sure that I never intervene with these players. Get it now? [/ QUOTE ] David, but in this case we can be sure there is such thing as a book called Theory of poker or that you exist(and these things have evidence of changing poker skill for good or for bad). if the explanation of the player skill is merely a hypothesis(the solely exists because it fits the problem so damn well, like 'he is more skilled because he is divine') we can use it as a hipothesis but we cant claim its highly likely(specially without prior evidence) can we? After all you can attribute the god hipothesis to the missing links on evolution but since its not provable and it was created solely because it fit the problem(and past problems like the big bang) well I'm not sure one can claim its highly likely, specially over a concurrent theory that has plenty of evidence for it
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
