PlaneShift

Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: buddha on May 25, 2005, 05:33:46 pm

Title: Okay, Serpent Joe
Post by: buddha on May 25, 2005, 05:33:46 pm
I\'m calling you out. Hit me with your best anti-evolution \"fact\".  Or would you prefer I start?
Title:
Post by: ajdaha on May 25, 2005, 05:53:22 pm
We still don\'t know what came first the chicken or da egg.
???????????
Title:
Post by: Karyuu on May 25, 2005, 06:01:09 pm
This could be really messy. Nerves will be pinched, heads bitten off, and feelings hurt. I really, really don\'t recommend entering such a debate here...
Title:
Post by: ajdaha on May 25, 2005, 06:03:12 pm
Lol, I can imagine buddha taking off his helmet in a ball batting cage. Standing up to the machine and saying, hit me with the best you\'ve got. And just waiting there.
Well my firend, I don\'t think there are any balls left. Now that everyone else has had a go ...
Title:
Post by: Nada on May 25, 2005, 06:08:33 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ajdaha
We still don\'t know what came first the chicken or da egg.
???????????


The egg came first because fish/reptiles appeared before birds, no?
Title:
Post by: ajdaha on May 25, 2005, 06:12:29 pm
I was joking. God is it not obvious?
The egg came first, you are right.
The question actually means to say that you cannot prove any of these (religion or evolution) so there is no answer. Although following the scientific path you would conclude that the egg came first. Actually sorry, but, are we talking the egg for the chicken or any egg in general.
My question confuses me, lol.
Title:
Post by: Karyuu on May 25, 2005, 06:22:15 pm
Religion cannot be proven because it relies on faith. Evolution (or rather any -scientific theory-) has a larger chance of being made known as either true or false with time, as the human knowledge pool increases.
Title:
Post by: ajdaha on May 25, 2005, 06:23:41 pm
Nothing can ever be proven. All life could be a perception.
Title:
Post by: Karyuu on May 25, 2005, 06:26:45 pm
Please don\'t tell me you subscribe to the philosophy that nothing can be made certain :P We have very good reasons to believe that life indeed exists as is.
Title:
Post by: ajdaha on May 25, 2005, 06:28:17 pm
Meh, nothing can be proven.
But if we were to change the definition of proof, maybe then the word could carry more weight.
Title:
Post by: Keyaz on May 25, 2005, 06:33:05 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ajdaha
Meh, nothing can be proven.


I am male... *checks underwear* Proven

Karyuu is fantastic, Proven

Another pointless thread getting nowhere, Proven
Title:
Post by: ajdaha on May 25, 2005, 06:42:33 pm
Well, at least it was pointless before I interveened and I have helped to prove it is pointless.
So don\'t blame me, blame Budha.
He has a worse name than me I reckon.
PS:
By your logic....
You are a female checks Avy, proven.
Title:
Post by: Keyaz on May 25, 2005, 06:54:44 pm
thus ensuing more pointlessness.

points to \'faces behind the players\' thread, Male, i could take further action to prove it, but this is not a pornography forum
Title:
Post by: ajdaha on May 25, 2005, 08:06:43 pm
Lol, isn\'t this the hydlaa plaza? Its where pointless belongs anyway.
Title:
Post by: Karyuu on May 25, 2005, 08:37:23 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ajdaha
But if we were to change the definition of proof, maybe then the word could carry more weight.


If I were to have a jelly donut, maybe then I\'d eat it :>

I don\'t like pointless threads, as they tend to be cleaned thoroughly if not deleted by the time the pointlessness rears its troll-like head, so I\'m going to attempt some sort of discussion, before serpentjoe takes the bait... Which I really hope he won\'t :/

Quote
Nothing can ever be proven. All life could be a perception.


I think you were trying to say, Ajdaha, that the existence of a world external to one\'s consciousness cannot be established through reason? Transcendental/Universal skepticism is a big mess. If one states that man can know nothing, he or she then will find themselves immersed in hopeless absurdities, for in asserting that there is no knowledge, the skeptic is asserting a knowledge claim - which according to his or her own theory is impossible.

If you meant that man can never attain certainty, you fare no better. Are you certain that we cannot attain certainty, or is it open to doubt as well? If it is known with certainty, at least one thing is beyond doubt, which makes the principle false. If, however, the principle is open to doubt, then on what grounds can one make the original claim?

;)
Title:
Post by: Moogie on May 25, 2005, 08:38:57 pm
It\'s where Off-Topic belongs actually, not really \'pointless\' stuff, regardless of what the forum title says.

This discussion isn\'t pointless, but it\'s been done SO many times now. Use the Search button to dig up one of the previous \'Religion vs. Evolution\' debates and if you have anything new to contribute (I doubt it very much), post there.