Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, May 12, 01:27:08am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Ingoring the substance Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 09/13/04 12:17am In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "...of little substance" on 08/15/04 12:01pm >>No I don't, especially given the insufficient evidence >>for human evolution. > >Yes you do, since it's an established fact which only >creationists seem to reject because it disagrees with >their doctrines. If resting a theory on tenuous and subjective opinions is an "established fact," then yes I deny that which is "beyond question." The dismal track record I pointed out already, and we're discussing that on another thread. To say that the fossil evidence are beyond question is both highly dubious and inappropriately arrogant given the evidence to the contrary. But again, we're discussing this issue on another thread. >>Nonetheless, we have highly sophisticated mathematics >>imprinted in the universe that did not have to exist. > >No, it didn't have to exist, but it does. The question >is why. Precisely. Theism offers explanatory power here. >>Out of all possible worlds, we have one of intricate >>mathematical order. > >You speak as though all other possible worlds are not >of intricate mathematical order. How do you know that? I can easily envision possible ones that aren't. A world being that of chaos, with no consistent mathematical order of any kind. Picture a hard drive with thoroughly randomized data. No functioning program. But if a program was found with a highly sophisticated operational mathematical matrix patterns... I didn't say all other worlds do not have intricate mathematical order, only that it seems awfully interesting that out of all possible ones, this universe is intricately mathematically ordered.. (Again, think of the randomized computer hard drive>) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Hitting the Bottle Damoclese 09/13/04 1:23am Of substance -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 09/14/04 3:48pm Substance abuse -- Damoclese, 09/14/04 10:29pm One quick comment Duane 09/13/04 10:20am One quick reply -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 09/14/04 4:06pm A strange admission... -- Duane, 09/14/04 4:59pm