The Truth (As I see it)

No, I didn't mean simultaneously, I meant they can do both things, as in if they want to lower the output of their metabolism, they can, and if they want to increase their metabolism, they can.

 

The human body and mind can be trained to withstand extreme duress. More conventional examples would be soldiers and firefighters.

Side note: While Shaolin monks have many skills which seem like supernatural abilities, most of them can be reproduced if one is willing to invest time and energy. I personally can't do it, because while I love the martial arts, the meditation kinda turns me off.

 

Water washing away mud is almost completely different from the gradual erosion of rock. And, incidentally, has nothing to do with evolution. You're talking about geology now. So your proposed experiment would demonstrate nothing of relevance.

There are two meanings of the word 'faith' and you are conflating them. Sometimes it is used in the sense of 'trust'. E.g. I have 'faith' in the brakes of my car. It is a belief that when I press the brake pedal, my car will stop. It is a justified belief because it has happened this way every time I have used my car's brakes in the past. Not only that, but I understand the mechanism by which they operate.

Then there is the religious sense of 'blind faith'. This is where there is no evidence for something, so you just have to take it 'on faith'. E.g. "I have faith that God will reward me in the afterlife." There is no evidence for this, and there is even considerable evidence against it, and yet some people believe it nonetheless.

Belief in the work of scientists and in the theory of evolution is the former of these types of 'faith'. Just as I could test my brakes before driving anywhere, if you really wanted to, you could get a PhD in biology and investigate the evidence for evolution for yourself. But I wouldn't recommend it in your case, because you seem to have a mistaken view of scientists. They admit their mistakes all the time. That's arguably what being a scientist is all about. That's why not everyone has the right mindset to be one. If you aren't the kind of person who can change your views in the face of evidence, don't try to become a scientist. You'll just embarrass yourself.

This is laughable, because that's exactly how the theory of evolution became established in the first place. Darwin's theory was initially challenged and disbelieved, and had to gain its place through hard-fought argument and displays of evidence. But if you want a specific example, then in 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a paper entitled "Punctuated Equilibria". It split the science community in two, and plenty of papers were subsequently published criticizing the new theory, and its opposite. Take your pick.

This is what makes science so powerful. It is based on the duplication of experiments. No theory is accepted without repeatable findings to back it up. However, religion is the complete opposite. Some authority figure makes a proclamation, and everyone just accepts it.

I'd like to protect those people from religious charlatans too. Keep up the good work.

They can't boil a pot of water. That would require them to bring part of their body to boiling point. Not only is that not possible, it is also the kind of thing you could only do once.

 

Variable voltage output. That will be a handy feature when you are plugged in to the Matrix.

 

I thought the point of the Matrix was that we were already plugged into it. These guys are just l33t hackerz.

 

Everything is interconnected. If geology proved that the world was 12,000 years old then how could Evolutionary Biology be true and still rational? Evolution is a concept that is inclusive of both geology and biology. I don't understand people's insistence that only life evolves.

 

Do mine! Do mine!

 

Strictly speaking the origins of life cannot be subjected to scientific method, since it happened long ago and we can't repeat it. The same goes for the origins of the universe.

However, I think it's cute the way creationists like to use science as a proof for their faith. They want their cake and to eat it too.

 

What if one were to create original life? If it happened once, can't it happen again?

 

The theory of evolution describes the mechanism by which life develops. Geology describes the mechanism by which the landscape changes. The mechanisms are completely independent, even if they have consequences for each other. Lumping them both together into some kind of "Evolutionist" philosophy is only what religious people do to try to maintain that "Evolutionism" is a belief system.

If geology indicated that the earth was very young, then that would certainly be a problem for the theory of evolution. But it doesn't.

The scientific method works with ancient evidence just as well as with comtemporary experimentation. Both involve constructing a theoretical framework that describes the hard facts of nature. Besides - there's nothing about the origin of life that suggests that any stage of it is not repeatable.

 

Strictly speaking, the only way to bury this argument using science is with a time-machine so we can observe the primeval event we're all bickering about. In the meantime, Occam's Razor on the evidence works just fine for me.

 

Fail.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

Anyhow, why do you think that I am not arguing against evolution directly? Believe whatever you want. But just because trusting and believing isn't wrong doesn't mean that those that deceive should be able to continue do so.

And since I am not the one who originated the claims of deception, I am not the one the evolutionist should or would sue.

Also, your claims that God told you are so contradictory to both Scripture and your purported sense of reason, that the joke is on you.

Addendum: Keep in mind that my position that deception occurs is a result of articles by others and not my own indepenent research. This is an acknowledgement that I may be deceived in this matter.

Truth be told, my position on the creation-evolution debate still hasn't been declared in its entirety. Mostly I am merely responding to the various arguments that others give. Therefore, ytzk's comment is a bit premature:

 

Anyone else think that "Galatians" sounds like a race of aliens from Star Trek?

Still maintaining the old "science as religion" canard, I see.

 

Help me to understand. Are you saying that you don't know if God is real? Yet you're willing to bob around talking about it as if you do (or so it seems to me; forgive me if I'm wrong)? If you don't know, must you not have doubts, by definition? And, "ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind" James 1:6; so you must know; or not have any doubts, which is the sense in which I use the word.

I superswear, though! Like the way Jesus and Moses and all those gents did! Also, isn't the appeal to Scripture an appeal to authority, and so argumentum ad verecundiam?

 

I was thinking about Creation Science magazine, Xyle, not referring to you necessarily. I recommend it to anyone who likes a good laugh.

 

Science + ist equals scientist. Evolution + ist equals evolutionist. Same "-ist". Incorrect perception.

 

My appeal to logic seems to have been ignored...

 

I would be too prone to become completely immersed in that culture which would make me completely closed to everyone else. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

Walk the talk. You can't appeal to logic by being illogical. People just focus on the illogical arguments instead of the logical ones.

You know, if you weren't funny, ...

 

I present this extract as a question in isolation, since that is what I'm concerned with, and I can't seem to find where I'm being illogical either here, or anywhere else relevant to this discussion.