Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wolfie · 07-11-2007, 09:27 AM

Supernatural
Interrelation proxy
Word exchange makes truth!

Samurai cast out
Into dark cold lonely place
Interrelate that!

ThorsHammer · 07-11-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by GilgameshEnkidu

Please explain what you mean by 'the direct participation of nature'. That might make it clearer what you are trying to say.

Scientists observe, gather information, experiment, and so on, right? In Evolution Theory, it is the scientists that do all the data gathering. Species could not directly say, "Hey, this is my genetic code. Use it" or the soil or rocks can't say, "That species that you are studying are living here in my place."

So, it is the scientists that conclude. But since they are seeing far from the personal experience of the soil, or rocks, or species, then, these scientists' conclusion can not be labeled natural explanation. It can be labeled as limited information or limited human understanding of nature.

If rocks, soil, species could talk and sit down with those scientists and explained their sides, then we can say that the findings and conclusion of those scientists are really natural explanation.

You know, it was only yesterday, after watering my plants, I sat down next to them and asked them if evolution was the correct explanation for their existence and all other life forms. You know what they said? The said YES!
I haven't discussed this with the rocks in my yard yet.

ThorsHammer · 07-11-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

What you've got there is called an assertion.

You may repeat it as often as you like, but it is completely (if fruitlessly) refuted thus:

Is too!

You know, I could have worn you mention some proof at one point. Now might be a good time to present it.

@ Dean

No, it is not assertion. I am questioning the credibility of Theory of Evolution and its scientists if it is/are really using natural or supernatural explanation/conclusion.

If the Theory of Evolution is really natural, then, those scientists have a back-up or guarantee from nature, let us say from the species concern or the seas where the species live on, or mountains where another species live. Because if those Evolution Theory scientsts don't have this confirmaton direct from nature, then, they are resorting to circular reasoning.

And what would this backup or guarantee be? Give us an example.

ThorsHammer · 07-11-2007, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by llDayo

samurai, could you tell us how a scientist can detect supernatural participation when all he has to work with is the natural world? Anything that's observed in the natural world is...get this...natural! The very idea of something being supernatural is because it exists outside of the natural universe, e.g., the one we reside in. All a scientist can do is observe what we can detect and base his findings on those observations. That's exactly what scientists have done with Evolutionary Theory (as with ALL scientific theories). So please, tell us how to detect the supernatural.

I thnk you need to present that question to Evolution Theory scientists for they are resorting to supernatural.

I agreed that anything that's observed in the natural world is natural! Correct! That is what I'm saying. And we observed interrelation in nature, and not evolution. Beyond the observed facts in nature is already supernatural. That is why I am saying that Evolution Theory is supernatural.

I'm interested in hearing your definition of supernatural.

ThorsHammer · 07-11-2007, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danhalen

Genetics were discovered independently of evolution.

I knew that. But if this genetics were used together with Evolution Theory, then, both are using supernatural explanation.

Are you making up these rules as you go along?

Wolfie · 07-11-2007, 09:40 AM

I couldn't help it - once the phrase has flashed through my mind, there's no shifting it without posting it (with many, many abject apologies to my man, Carl Douglas :wave: )...

Everybody was interrelationally fighting
Those cats were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they fought with expert timing

There was funky Samurai from some funky Asian town
They were chopping him up and they were chopping him down
It's an Internet Infidel art and everybody knew their part
From a feint into a slip, and kicking from the hip

Everybody was interrelationally fighting
Those cats were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they fought with expert timing

There was funky Oolon C and little David B
He said here comes bad Wolfie, lets get it on
We took a bow and made a stand, started swinging with the hand
The sudden motion made me skip now we're into a brand knew trip

Everybody was interrelationally fighting
Those cats were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they did it with expert timing

samurai · 07-11-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y.B

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Yes, because the observed fact in nature is interrelation. It is not creation nor evolution if we follow the agreed limit of science.

If we follow the "agreed limit of science", we find that:

1) Gene pools change over time
2) Life on Earth has descended with modification from a common ancestor

These two are called... evolution! ZOMG the horror, call it "interrelation" or else!

Though somehow I doubt samurai will agree with 2).

1. It is true that gene pool change over time but it is also true that it is not evolution. It is interrelation. The natural explanation of the observed facts.

2. By using the term common ancestor, you are already assuming that Evolution is correct. We don't see/observe that in nature, the observed fact in nature is that life or all animals on earth are interrelated. They are not the product of evolution. For beyond that explanation is already supernatural.

lenrek · 07-11-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

...1. It is true that gene pool change over time but it is also true that it is not evolution. It is interrelation. The natural explanation of the observed facts.

Huh? What??

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

... 2. By using the term common ancestor, you are already assuming that Evolution is correct. We don't see/observe that in nature, the observed fact in nature is that life or all animals on earth are interrelated. They are not the product of evolution. For beyond that explanation is already supernatural.

Is no wonder this thread ends up at ~E~.

lenrek · 07-11-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

...
Everybody was interrelationally fighting
Those cats were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they fought with expert timing

There was funky Samurai from some funky Asian town
They were chopping him up and they were chopping him down
It's an Internet Infidel art and everybody knew their part
From a feint into a slip, and kicking from the hip

Everybody was interrelationally fighting
Those cats were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they fought with expert timing

There was funky Oolon C and little David B
He said here comes bad Wolfie, lets get it on
We took a bow and made a stand, started swinging with the hand
The sudden motion made me skip now we're into a brand knew trip

Everybody was interrelationally fighting
Those cats were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they did it with expert timing

:rolling:

Betenoire · 07-11-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

1. It is true that gene pool change over time but it is also true that it is not evolution. It is interrelation.

You know, this reminds me of a story my mom tells me about back when I was four, and my mom would take me to ride the bus to daycare. "What's that letter?" she'd ask.
"A!" I'd say.
"No, she'd say, that's a B."
And I would reply "No, that's an A".
My serene mother would reply, "Well, everybody else thinks that's a B."
To which I would say, "They're wrong." I was a precocious little brat at age four, what can I say (my mom would argue I haven't stopped being a precocious little brat).

Now we find out if Sbmurbi knows whbt bnblogy is.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-11-2007, 09:27 AM	#271
Wolfie Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: The Wolf Pit, England, old chap, what? Posts: 1,627	Supernatural Interrelation proxy Word exchange makes truth! Samurai cast out Into dark cold lonely place Interrelate that!

07-11-2007, 09:40 AM	#276
Wolfie Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: The Wolf Pit, England, old chap, what? Posts: 1,627	I couldn't help it - once the phrase has flashed through my mind, there's no shifting it without posting it (with many, many abject apologies to my man, Carl Douglas :wave: )... Everybody was interrelationally fighting Those cats were fast as lightning In fact it was a little bit frightning But they fought with expert timing There was funky Samurai from some funky Asian town They were chopping him up and they were chopping him down It's an Internet Infidel art and everybody knew their part From a feint into a slip, and kicking from the hip Everybody was interrelationally fighting Those cats were fast as lightning In fact it was a little bit frightning But they fought with expert timing There was funky Oolon C and little David B He said here comes bad Wolfie, lets get it on We took a bow and made a stand, started swinging with the hand The sudden motion made me skip now we're into a brand knew trip Everybody was interrelationally fighting Those cats were fast as lightning In fact it was a little bit frightning But they did it with expert timing

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.