Really? To you it really explains no designer? The environment itself doesn't design what being will survive in it and not? We're not even going to supernature in any regard, we're talking about the color of tree bark and the color of squirrels that will be in the area. The squirrels don't choose to be that color, they survive because of it.
Yeah, the ability to adapt sure seems like it just kind of showed up unannounced, with no rhyme or reason. No design to that at all, no conservation of energy.
I don't understand you LakeForest. Before the evolution theory the argument was "see how perfect all this super complex nature is? it 's because of God 's wisdom". Then evolution comes and says, well, here 's how it works without the need of any external wisdom. Note the "without the need of any external wisdom" part.
What you call the ability to adapt is itself a product of evolution. Same mechanism. Endless mutations, endless deaths etc.
See? Science itself is looking for the Source. Undeniable.
I don't understand. Science is looking to explain the way everything works.
No, you can't argue that, because in statistics, thus logic, Everything means EVERYTHING. You don't get to pick and choose. The set that includes all sets does also include itself. Reconcile that paradox.
Yes, I can argue that because my premise is that God is above and over logic, so it 's perfectly valid (i.e. you can't disprove it with logic). It 's a beautiful argument. It 's the argument that beats the classic trick question "Can an all mighty God create a rock he can't lift?"
The set that includes itself example is perfect. The paradox is created by the limitation of the formal system itself, the "naive" set theory. Once you move out of it and into von Neumann hierarchy of sets, poof, no more paradox.
Look into what Godel proved in 1931 if you want proof of why this is true for all formal systems.
I guess you need to define God better to mean "everything, unless i think something can't fit into the everything"
No, no need for that - see above
Said this three times already. Science is not up to vote, and neither can the identity of God, so what is the only possible way to approach God? Through science.
We agree that science is not up to vote and that the existence or not of God is not up to vote.
These two facts do not infer that science can prove the existence of God, that 's a huge logical jump you 're taking there.
To say it can't touch your balls is lacking a grasp of reality and imagination. Terrible example.
You mean that the fish can, with a better grasp of reality and imagination, touch my balls?
Ok, I think you use that word without understanding it.
I think it 's you who doesn't:
formal system
Um, you seriously think there's nothing standing firm in the universe? Because that's what you're saying: There are no laws of physics or anything of that nature. There is no time. There isn't even relativity.
There exist as long as we agree to believe the basic axioms of the formal system with which we examine them.
I'll let it pass because it's the weekend, but, to you, "There 's no formal system without axioms," is your axiom. That's what you hold undeniable.
What?? Read about formal systems and come back to prove otherwise. My statement is no axiom at all (hint: bullet point number 3).
If one cannot disprove it, with all their study, then one cannot comment on its validity or lack thereof, no? That's pretty axiomatic, if I do say so myself.
No. You can't disprove there are no flying pink elephants. You can claim that since we have never found one, they are most probably not in existence but there 's no way to prove it. See Popper 's falsifiability argument for more details.
You're trying to get rid of it, but the axiom I've been repeating is "God exists and it is valid to approach that with science more than any other tool." That has yet to be challenged on any level
Axioms are improvable by their definition! That 's why we call them axioms
So, you are complaining about lack of proof against your ... axiom?
, and if you look at our exchange, I've answered far more than has been questioned, and with a near complete reconciliation of any counter-view.
You wish
