Religion III

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Once you appeal to infinite regression, you're saying two things: I don't know how the universe came into existence.

I don't claim to know how the universe came into existence. See #4979. And you don't know how the universe came into existence either. Furthermore, we don't know if the universe ever came into existence. The cyclic models do not require such an event.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Actor

I don't claim to know how the universe came into existence. See #4979. And you don't know how the universe came into existence either. Furthermore, we don't know if the universe ever came into existence. The cyclic models do not require such an event.

I thought you believed in the Big Bang theory.No?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Light

I thought you believed in the Big Bang theory.No?

The Big Bang is settled science. However, the idea that the Big Bang equates with the origin of the universe is a misconception. Cyclic models posit the Big Bang followed by an expanding universe. The expansion eventually stops and is followed by a collapse leading to a big crunch and the process repeats. The big crunch followed by a big bang is often called the big bounce.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Actor

However, the idea that the Big Bang equates with the origin of the universe is a misconception.

Not clear what you mean by that. Doesn't the Big Bang theory claim to be the origins of our universe?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Pot calling the kettle black!

You can never admit when you're wrong can you, Mr, Know-it-all? You clearly said earlier that causes are not in their effects; but then turn right around (after I called you out on your duplicity) tacitly admitting that genetic code is in the caterpillar, which can only mean that that code is passed on to the butterfly (the effect!).

You do not remember what started this. I criticized your claim that the fallacy of composition disproves evolution

Originally Posted by boxcar

Neither you or Actor are fit to lick the bottom of the boots of Aristotle or Aquinas.

All I said about evolution is that a cause must be in its effect, which does demolish evolution -- just like the caterpillar is in the butterfly.

Questions for you, oh Mr.Unstable genius

1)-Does an early stage in an organisms life cycle, CAUSE the latter stages as EFFECTS?

2)-Does the kitten cause the cat?

3)- Does a 10 year old child, cause an 11 year old child, as an effect?
..a)-Does a 10 year old child, cause a 10 and one minute old child?
..b)-Is the toddler the EFFECT, of the CAUSE of the infant?

4)-When you walk across the street, does your preceding left foot step #1, cause your succeeding right foot step #2?

5)-When you slip on a banana peel, does the banana peel cause that EXCRUCIATING PAIN IN YOUR brain when you land flat on your pompous ass?

And finally, how da' hell does the fallacy of composition demolish evolution?

Your original idiotic claim.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Light

Not clear what you mean by that. Doesn't the Big Bang theory claim to be the origins of our universe?

It is only one explanation. An oscillating or cyclic theory includes the Big Bang as one part of possibly an infinite number of cycles.


“The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology.
...Carl Sagan

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You do not remember what started this. I criticized your claim that the fallacy of composition disproves evolution
Questions for you, oh Mr.Unstable genius

1)-Does an early stage in an organisms life cycle, CAUSE the latter stages as EFFECTS?

2)-Does the kitten cause the cat?

3)- Does a 10 year old child, cause an 11 year old child, as an effect?
..a)-Does a 10 year old child, cause a 10 and one minute old child?
..b)-Is the toddler the EFFECT, of the CAUSE of the infant?

4)-When you walk across the street, does your preceding left foot step #1, cause your succeeding right foot step #2?

5)-When you slip on a banana peel, does the banana peel cause that EXCRUCIATING PAIN IN YOUR brain when you land flat on your pompous ass?

And finally, how da' hell does the fallacy of composition demolish evolution?

Your original idiotic claim.

You're the one who doesn't remember! I always questioned evolution on the basis of the principle that causes must be in their effects. YOU DENIED THE VALIDITY OF THIS PRINCIPLE! But you're so confused by your own convoluted logic that you unwittingly contradicted yourself when you begrudgingly and tacitly admitted that genetic code resides within the caterpillar, which must mean it's passed on to its effect (the butterfly)!

Rocks are definitely smarter than you are! At least they contradict themselves.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're the one who doesn't remember! I always questioned evolution on the basis of the principle that causes must be in their effects. YOU DENIED THE VALIDITY OF THIS PRINCIPLE! But you're so confused by your own convoluted logic that you unwittingly contradicted yourself when you begrudgingly and tacitly admitted that genetic code resides within the caterpillar, which must mean it's passed on to its effect (the butterfly)!

Rocks are definitely smarter than you are! At least they contradict themselves.

The Fallacy of Composition has nothing to do with "causes must be in their effects"

So how does the Fallacy of Composition demolish evolution as you claim?

I asked you, do kittens cause cats? Is the biological "effect" of the cat, in and caused by the kitten?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The Fallacy of Composition has nothing to do with "causes must be in their effects"

No kidding Shirleylock.

So how does the Fallacy of Composition demolish evolution as you claim?

I asked you, do kittens cause cats? Is the biological "effect" of the cat, in and caused by the kitten?

I'm done with you. As usual, you have lost another round to me.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No kidding Shirleylock.

I called you out for claiming "The Fallacy of Composition" disproves evolution. You actually claimed evolution violates it. Never explaining how, after being asked many, many times, Mr. Lying thru your teeth, POS, Deceiver fanatic.

Originally Posted by boxcar

That's nice. But evolution still violates the Law of Identity and is also the Fallacy of Composition.

Still waiting!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I called you out for claiming "The Fallacy of Composition" disproves evolution. You actually claimed evolution violates it. Never explaining how, after being asked many, many times, Mr. Lying thru your teeth, POS, Deceiver fanatic.



Still waiting!

And I called you out for claiming that causes are not int the effects and you lost.

So...you're "still waiting", heh? In addition to waiting, hold your breath, Mr. Empty Suit.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And I called you out for claiming that causes are not int the effects and you lost.

So...you're "still waiting", heh? In addition to waiting, hold your breath, Mr. Empty Suit.

I figured out why you never remember your harebrained proclamations, like "evolution violates the fallacy of composition"

There are just so many you make up on the spur of the moment when you are either at your wit's end and cannot respond rationally, or you actually believe what you just made up as some revelation from on high. But there are an astronomical amount of bullshit and you would have to computerize them to keep track of them all.

You insulted me, called me all sorts of names as well as others. for simply correcting you about your own lies and hypocritical statements. I told you fallacy of composition has nothing to do with evolution and you incoherently babbled:

"No kidding Shirleylock." Whatever that means.

I kicked your butt on your claim. That causes are in their effects. Remember?

Oh great unstable genius, you answered none of my questions intended simply to get you to expand your thinking.

Do kittens cause cats? Is the cat an effect of the kitten?
Does a 10 year old child cause an 11 year old child? Is the 11 year old an effect of the 10 year old?

Or is the process of growth, in an organic being due to something encompassing that process of growth itself. As in all the 4 stages of caterpillar to butterfly ?

Like evolution causing the genes that cause that growth? You are stuck on the details losing track of the larger picture.

When you swing a hammer at a window and break it. Did the shattered parts of the window pre-exist in the hammer, your arm, or your mind?
Those shards, or effects of breakage, were never in any of those causes.

When a boulder is dislodged by an earthquake and sent hurling down the hill to your house, and breaks that same window you previous broke and then repaired, had the new glass shards pre-existed in the bolder, the hill it rolled down, the earthquake that dislodged it, or the tectonic plates shifting 1,000 feet below and 10 miles from your house?

The broken glass or the effects of all those chain of causes, was never in any of that.

If you don't mean IN, bunky, try again

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I figured out why you never remember your harebrained proclamations, like "evolution violates the fallacy of composition"

There are just so many you make up on the spur of the moment when you are either at your wit's end and cannot respond rationally, or you actually believe what you just made up as some revelation from on high. But there are an astronomical amount of bullshit and you would have to computerize them to keep track of them all.

You insulted me, called me all sorts of names as well as others. for simply correcting you about your own lies and hypocritical statements. I told you fallacy of composition has nothing to do with evolution and you incoherently babbled:

"No kidding Shirleylock." Whatever that means.

I kicked your butt on your claim. That causes are in their effects. Remember?

Oh great unstable genius, you answered none of my questions intended simply to get you to expand your thinking.

Do kittens cause cats? Is the cat an effect of the kitten?
Does a 10 year old child cause an 11 year old child? Is the 11 year old an effect of the 10 year old?

Or is the process of growth, in an organic being due to something encompassing that process of growth itself. As in all the 4 stages of caterpillar to butterfly ?

Like evolution causing the genes that cause that growth? You are stuck on the details losing track of the larger picture.

When you swing a hammer at a window and break it. Did the shattered parts of the window pre-exist in the hammer, your arm, or your mind?
Those shards, or effects of breakage, were never in any of those causes.

When a boulder is dislodged by an earthquake and sent hurling down the hill to your house, and breaks that same window you previous broke and then repaired, had the new glass shards pre-existed in the bolder, the hill it rolled down, the earthquake that dislodged it, or the tectonic plates shifting 1,000 feet below and 10 miles from your house?

The broken glass or the effects of all those chain of causes, was never in any of that.

If you don't mean IN, bunky, try again

You're a bona fide, certifiable lunatic. Now with your last stupid question above you're equating inorganic life (rocks, boulders) with organic life (caterpillars, butterflies)? Rocks and boulders have genetic code in them like caterpillars do?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You're a bona fide, certifiable lunatic. Now with your last stupid question above you're equating inorganic life (rocks, boulders) with organic life (caterpillars, butterflies)? Rocks and boulders have genetic code in them like caterpillars do?

1)-Tell us how evolution violates the fallacy of composition which you denied you ever said.

2)-Explain how an "effect" must be IN a "cause," and therefore why a caterpillar cannot transform into a butterfly according yo it's genetic profile?

The only organic life form I am equating with a rock is you. You totally misunderstood the concept of a "causal chain" Funny, even Aquinas had a notion of such in order to propose his "primal cause"

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

1)-Tell us how evolution violates the fallacy of composition which you denied you ever said.

2)-Explain how an "effect" must be IN a "cause," and therefore why a caterpillar cannot transform into a butterfly according yo it's genetic profile?

The only organic life form I am equating with a rock is you. You totally misunderstood the concept of a "causal chain" Funny, even Aquinas had a notion of such in order to propose his "primal cause"

Isn't the genetic code the cause of transformation? Would it be possible for any transformation (change) to occur, apart from the genetic code!?