Intelligent design

Jun 6, 2012 Full story: The Indian Express 306

As Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi retires, senior BJP leader L.K. Advani has asked the government to reconsider the appointment process to critical constitutional offices.

Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#270 May 22, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Genetics don't violate the law of non-contradiction because nature governs it and nature does not contradict itself! Genetics, fossils etc., follows the same pattern within nature because nature governs all.
And that pattern is simply change over time. So evolution is not contradicting nature. You are saying life changes over time except when it does not. This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Infinite Force wrote:
Once again, the law of non-contradiction is a threat to the theory of evolution because majority of the information presented to represent the theory of evolution is in violation of the law of non-contradiction!
You have not been able to demonstrate your claim and instead argued using definitions which contradict nature. This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Infinite Force wrote:
You have the scientific method for empirical evidence and I have the scientific method to test the information you present from interpreting the empirical evidence.
You are not using the scientific method because you are not testing anything. You have merely chosen a restrictive label of the term "species" and assumed that biology is bound by non-existent abstract concepts. Your "interpretations" are meaningless without testing. You could "interpret" that it's all evidence of the Cosmic Sheep of Dimension Zog being the source of nature. There is nothing in nature that contradicts that. However to claim the interpretation makes use of empricism and the scientific method would be a lie. Hence it violates the law of non-contradiction.

In your case you claim Goddidit with magic and UFO's dropped off new species at regular 1 million year intervals in a manner that made it LOOK like life evolved on this planet and life changes except when it doesn't, therefore evolution is wrong. Your claim is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. The fact you are contradicting the law of non-contradiction is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Therefore you have violated the law of non-contradiction. If you violate the law of non-contradiction then your hypothesis must be discarded as it is a violation of the law of non-contradiction because nothing must violate the law of no-contradiction.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#271 May 22, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Which-ever one you call yourself!
Because apparently definitions don't matter.
Infinite Force wrote:
Don’t need to because to say different would be in violation of the law of non-contradiction because nature does not contradict it’s self. For example, the humans you see today and how they biologically reproduce has always been that way. To say different would be in violation of the law of non-contradiction.
How do you know? Where you there?

(evil grin)
Infinite Force wrote:
Spiders is a biological reproductive species and I leave that as that!
Then so are "fish". Now find me a stickleback that can mate with a great white.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#272 May 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Take the number 1. Keep adding 1 each successive generation. Unless the Earth is 6,000 years old these changes WILL accumulate and you will eventually get something different.
Your term “different” is changes over millions or even billions of years into “opposite” biological reproductive species and this is in violation of the law of non-contradiction! You and your contradictory science called the theory of evolution and your contradictory "different" term you use to explain the diversification of opposite species over millions and billions of years is foolish/illogical when trying to explain reality/nature, because reality/nature does not contradict its self and the information you are projecting over topix does!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
"Species" is merely a label invented by humans. Biology is not restricted by abstract concepts. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.
If you label one word that is used to describe reality an abstract concept or invented by humans then all of the words that YOU AND ONLY YOU use to describe reality/nature must also fall under the abstract concepts and all words used to describe reality/nature are labels invented by humans, if not you are in violation of the law of non-contradiction! You can’t cherry pick words that you like and dis-like that describes reality for your own biased and prejudice arguments against creation, and this is where the law of non-contradiction makes you eat all of the terms you use to explain nature/reality as abstract concepts and this is all the theory of evolution is anyway!

The word genetics you were using in one of your previous posts by your way of thinking is an abstract concept just like species because both words are used to describing reality/nature. A matter of fact any word used to describe reality/nature is an abstract concept just because you said the term species is so there for the law of non-contradiction holds that ALL words that you use to describe reality/nature is an abstract concept. YOU JUST CANCELED YOURSELF OUT ON SPEAKING ABOUT REALITY/NATURE because abstract concepts are not testable by the scientific method.

::CHUCKLING AT YA::

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#273 May 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because apparently definitions don't matter.
To you every definition used to explain nature/reality is an abstract concept so it really shouldn’t even matter to you what definition I or you use because abstract concepts are not testable by the scientific method!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know? Where you there?
Don’t need to be present millions or billions of years ago to tell you that nature didn’t contradict it’s self-back then because the law of non-contradiction is constant and time is irrelevant!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text> (evil grin)
Evil grin back at you!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then so are "fish". Now find me a stickleback that can mate with a great white.


If it can it is the same biological reproductive species if it can’t they are both opposite biological reproductive species! CASE CLOSED!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#274 May 22, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Which-ever one you call yourself!
<quoted text>
Don’t need to because to say different would be in violation of the law of non-contradiction because nature does not contradict it’s self. For example, the humans you see today and how they biologically reproduce has always been that way. To say different would be in violation of the law of non-contradiction.
<quoted text>
Spiders is a biological reproductive species and I leave that as that!
First "spiders" is not a species.

Second, the methodology of human reproduction isn't any different than that of any other mammal, yet we can't reproduce with any of them.

Therefore, it's the degree of genetic diversity between two individuals trying to mate that determines compatibility.

We don't know that current humans are genetically compatible with ancient humans.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#275 May 22, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Your term “different” is changes over millions or even billions of years into “opposite” biological reproductive species and this is in violation of the law of non-contradiction!
Yes it is.

Because you are still using the term "opposite" incorrectly.

Ergo evolution itself does not have a problem.
Infinite Force wrote:
You and your contradictory science called the theory of evolution and your contradictory "different" term you use to explain the diversification of opposite species over millions and billions of years is foolish/illogical when trying to explain reality/nature, because reality/nature does not contradict its self and the information you are projecting over topix does!
You have been woefully unable to demonstrate that. That is why your assertions are ignored.
Infinite Force wrote:
If you label one word that is used to describe reality an abstract concept or invented by humans then all of the words that YOU AND ONLY YOU use to describe reality/nature must also fall under the abstract concepts and all words used to describe reality/nature are labels invented by humans, if not you are in violation of the law of non-contradiction!
Yes, all labels are ultimately abstract concepts. But it does not necessarily follow that all words cannot be used to describe reality. We CAN use English to describe nature. But then we can also use it to describe the story of Star Wars.

We're doing the former, you the latter. Only you can't rake as much money in peddling your fiction since technically you didn't invent it.

Double bummer.
Infinite Force wrote:
You can’t cherry pick words that you like and dis-like that describes reality for your own biased and prejudice arguments against creation, and this is where the law of non-contradiction makes you eat all of the terms you use to explain nature/reality as abstract concepts and this is all the theory of evolution is anyway!
Actually I CAN cherry-pick words. That's the beauty of language. What's IMPORTANT is that when I do so I do not contradict reality.

You do. I don't.

Hence you violate your own law.
Infinite Force wrote:
The word genetics you were using in one of your previous posts by your way of thinking is an abstract concept just like species because both words are used to describing reality/nature. A matter of fact any word used to describe reality/nature is an abstract concept just because you said the term species is so there for the law of non-contradiction holds that ALL words that you use to describe reality/nature is an abstract concept. YOU JUST CANCELED YOURSELF OUT ON SPEAKING ABOUT REALITY/NATURE because abstract concepts are not testable by the scientific method.
::CHUCKLING AT YA::
Nice try. However when those abstract concepts are compared against reality, make predictions, then tested, that's when their validity is determined. The theory of evolution makes successful, testable scientific predictions as we've already shown. You avoided that ENTIRELY in favour of your 3,000 year old philosophical argument.

It failed then. It failed now. Repeating it will not change things.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#276 May 22, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
To you every definition used to explain nature/reality is an abstract concept so it really shouldn’t even matter to you what definition I or you use because abstract concepts are not testable by the scientific method!
Not if they remain purely abstract. For instance we can model a two-dimensional universe using math, and test it in a sense using calculations based on mathematical axioms. Throw all the numbers you like at it and as long as you don't suck at math they WILL work out.

But since we do not live in a two-dimensional universe that means whatever is described will be inaccurate. Therefore our abstract model must be scientific instead. We do this by comparing our abstract concept against reality. And if it matches we know our abstract concept is, for now at least, valid.
Infinite Force wrote:
Don’t need to be present millions or billions of years ago to tell you that nature didn’t contradict it’s self-back then because the law of non-contradiction is constant and time is irrelevant!
And biology does not claim that nature contradicted itself. However time is VERY relevant, as it is what allows the addition of new material each generation.

You are claiming that if we keep adding 1 with each successive generation the number will stay the same - a CLEAR violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Infinite Force wrote:
Evil grin back at you!
>:-)
Infinite Force wrote:
If it can it is the same biological reproductive species if it can’t they are both opposite biological reproductive species! CASE CLOSED!
They are not "opposites". They are both fish. Case open. "Fish" is not a species. "Spider" is not a species. "Opposites" involves only two subjects. Blue, red and green are not "opposites". Just different.

If you can't even get basic English right how on Earth do you expect to get anywhere with science?

Ask some of your telepathic alien buddies to help you. Being an advanced race(s) they should be able to explain it to you.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#277 May 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is.
Because you are still using the term "opposite" incorrectly.
Ergo evolution itself does not have a problem.
Are you serious?! My creativity expressing my scientific concepts is Infinite!!!!!!!!! If the term “opposite” bothers you so much then let’s use a synonym term of it so I will not contradict myself when I prove to you the theory of evolution ONCE again contradict its self and violates the law of non-contradiction found in nature. A rattle snake and a human being is an incompatible (synonym with opposite) biological reproductive species!

Descent with modification when it comes to the origin of biological diversity by the theory of evolution demands that a biological reproductive species have to have been compatible at one time or another for it to change after billions of years with descent into the biodiversity we observe today. Likewise and in demonstration, a biological reproductive species become PERMENTLY incompatible (synonym with opposite) as we see today with a rattle snake and a human being as a biological reproductive species over time!

A. Biological reproductive species are compatible!

B. Biological reproductive species are incompatible (synonym with opposite)!

C. Biological reproductive species is compatible and over billions of years biological reproductive species become incompatible (synonym with opposite)!

Apply the law of non-contradiction found in nature to answers A, B and C.

In sum, the law of non-contradiction as the scientific method for checking the integrity of information put out by scientist who attempts to interprets and explain how biological diversity originated on planet earth scientifically concludes that the theory of evolution is a contradictory science and this alone violates the principles of a scientific law (constant principle) found in all sciences and the law of non-contradiction.

In addition the constant principle is thus excluding Answers C and B by the law of non-contradiction and leaves answer A because a biological reproductive species is and always (the law of non-contradiction/constant principle found in nature) is compatible as demonstrated and observed today.

Once again the theory of evolution fails miserably by violating the law of non-contradiction by saying a biological reproductive species was compatible over billions of years ago and at this current date biological reproductive species are incompatible. Your pseudo-science claiming compatible and incompatible of a biological reproductive species violate the law of non-contradiction because time vs. constant is irrelevant when it comes to the constant principle found in nature!

The simplified self-evident absolute truth (universal conscience) demonstrates compatible and incompatible or opposite/contradictory terms and the use of these terms to explain the same biological reproductive species found in nature is in violation of the law of non-contradiction, thus rejecting the theory of evolution explanation for the origin of species on planet earth but instead confirming the origin of biological reproductive species as being fixed/unchanging as a new biological scientific law!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#278 May 22, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
A. Biological reproductive species are compatible!
B. Biological reproductive species are incompatible (synonym with opposite)!
C. Biological reproductive species is compatible and over billions of years biological reproductive species become incompatible (synonym with opposite)!
You are making a very clear mistake.

You are assuming that all reproduction always results in individuals which are universally compatible regardless of how long two groups of been separated.

That's not the case.

We see LOTS of examples of this all over the place. Squirrels which live on opposite sides of the Grand Canyon are closely related genetically, but are different species because the two groups were founded by a single group but each group changed over time in different ways.

Two cars that leave Chicago in opposite directions get further and further apart over time. It doesn't matter that they once shared a garage. Over time the change (their location) increases until the cars are far apart.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#279 May 22, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
If you label one word that is used to describe reality an abstract concept or invented by humans then all of the words that YOU AND ONLY YOU use to describe reality/nature must also fall under the abstract concepts and all words used to describe reality/nature are labels invented by humans
Yes, all words are abstract concepts.

The word "tree" is not an ACTUAL tree.

Nor is there such thing as a "tree".

There are many different kinds of tall woody plants with varying fruits and leaves living in many locations worldwide.

These plants share some common features, but no single one of them can be 100% defined as "THE TREE" that people mean when they say "tree".

Ditto "dog", "cat", "Henry", "France"

These are all LABELS not things.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#280 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Are you serious?! My creativity expressing my scientific concepts is Infinite!
And the power of the Jedi is infinite. But the important thing to remember here is that both are fiction.
Infinite Force wrote:
If the term “opposite” bothers you so much
You are confused. It does not bother me in the slightest. It bothers you. That's where your problems arise.
Infinite Force wrote:
then let’s use a synonym term of it so I will not contradict myself when I prove to you the theory of evolution ONCE again contradict its self and violates the law of non-contradiction found in nature. A rattle snake and a human being is an incompatible (synonym with opposite) biological reproductive species!
Descent with modification when it comes to the origin of biological diversity by the theory of evolution demands that a biological reproductive species have to have been compatible at one time or another for it to change after billions of years with descent into the biodiversity we observe today. Likewise and in demonstration, a biological reproductive species become PERMENTLY incompatible (synonym with opposite) as we see today with a rattle snake and a human being as a biological reproductive species over time!
A. Biological reproductive species are compatible!
B. Biological reproductive species are incompatible (synonym with opposite)!
C. Biological reproductive species is compatible and over billions of years biological reproductive species become incompatible (synonym with opposite)!
Apply the law of non-contradiction found in nature to answers A, B and C.
And there is no contradiction. They simply share common ancestry millions of years ago. Two separate lines that gradually diverged from the same point. Like cousins share the same grandparents, and the difference is measurable. Now apply that over millions of years.
Infinite Force wrote:
In sum, the law of non-contradiction as the scientific method for checking the integrity of information put out by scientist who attempts to interprets and explain how biological diversity originated on planet earth scientifically concludes that the theory of evolution is a contradictory science and this alone violates the principles of a scientific law (constant principle) found in all sciences and the law of non-contradiction.
You have no science here. If you had science you would be doing research and performing scientific tests. Instead you have constructed a logic argument which fails as it does not take reality into account. Your case subsequently falls from there.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#281 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
In addition the constant principle is thus excluding Answers C and B by the law of non-contradiction and leaves answer A because a biological reproductive species is and always (the law of non-contradiction/constant principle found in nature) is compatible as demonstrated and observed today.
Once again the theory of evolution fails miserably by violating the law of non-contradiction by saying a biological reproductive species was compatible over billions of years ago and at this current date biological reproductive species are incompatible.
That is no more a contradiction than two cars starting at the same point while one gradually turns left and one goes right.
Infinite Force wrote:
Your pseudo-science claiming compatible and incompatible of a biological reproductive species violate the law of non-contradiction because time vs. constant is irrelevant when it comes to the constant principle found in nature!
On the contrary, time is HIGHLY relevant. You are claiming that
adding more candy to a small pile of candy over time, that pile will stay the same size. That is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. You are forgetting that in life there are both constants and non-constants. The key to why is time.
Infinite Force wrote:
The simplified self-evident absolute truth (universal conscience)
Pure woo, totally irrelevant to this conversation.
Infinite Force wrote:
demonstrates compatible and incompatible or opposite/contradictory terms and the use of these terms to explain the same biological reproductive species found in nature is in violation of the law of non-contradiction, thus rejecting the theory of evolution explanation for the origin of species on planet earth but instead confirming the origin of biological reproductive species as being fixed/unchanging as a new biological scientific law!
But you are not using terms correctly. That is why you fail. Life changes over time. Fact. This accumulates. Fact. This will lead to differing characteristics. Fact. You are claiming change does not result in change. This is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Further, evolution has been scientifically tested. Quite thoroughly I might add. It passes those tests. It does not matter if it does not pass YOUR test because your test is based on a faulty assumption. And I'm not talking about the law of non-contradiction.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#282 May 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all words are abstract concepts.
The word "tree" is not an ACTUAL tree.
Nor is there such thing as a "tree".
There are many different kinds of tall woody plants with varying fruits and leaves living in many locations worldwide.
These plants share some common features, but no single one of them can be 100% defined as "THE TREE" that people mean when they say "tree".
Under I-F's assumptions an oak tree and pine tree are "opposites" being biologically incompatible separate species. Yet they are both called "trees" *because* of their shared characteristics. Just as humans and rattlesnakes are both called vertibrate chordate animals.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#283 May 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making a very clear mistake.


I am not making a mistake by demonstrating to you that nature do no contradict it’s self by saying biological reproductive species were compatible over a billion years ago and through descending generations over millions or billions of years the same biological reproductive species is now incompatible, because now they are proposed as different by your Genus species classification system.

A Biological reproductive species is compatible or incompatible with the same biological reproductive species and time is irrelevant because nature is constant.

Your theory of evolution is claiming that the same biological reproductive species is compatible at first and over time the same biological reproductive species becomes incompatible and this violates the law of non-contradiction found in nature.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#284 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
I am not making a mistake by demonstrating to you that nature do no contradict it’s self by saying biological reproductive species were compatible over a billion years ago and through descending generations over millions or billions of years the same biological reproductive species is now incompatible, because now they are proposed as different by your Genus species classification system.
A Biological reproductive species is compatible or incompatible with the same biological reproductive species and time is irrelevant because nature is constant.
Time is relevant because nature is not constant. A simple look at the geological record will confirm this. DNA supports this even further. You are in violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Infinite Force wrote:
Your theory of evolution is claiming that the same biological reproductive species is compatible at first and over time the same biological reproductive species becomes incompatible and this violates the law of non-contradiction found in nature.
Your law is not found in nature because you are using it incorrectly. You ignored Nuggin's car example, that if two cars diverge when travelling the distance will inevitably become greater. So much so that soon they will no longer be able to see each other. Your argument is that nearby cars can see each other therefore they will always see each other because sight is constant. So either they can always see each other or they can't. There is no inbetween where sometimes we can and sometimes we can't, or where it becomes difficult to see each other.

Curtis, you are in violation of the law of non-contradiction. And I suspect you know this. So why are you constantly ignoring rebuttals and simply repeating assertions?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#285 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
A Biological reproductive species is compatible or incompatible with the same biological reproductive species and time is irrelevant because nature is constant.
Why are there no sabretooth tigers if nature is constant?
Why are there no dodo birds?
Why are there no mammoths?
Why are there no T-rexes?

Do you seriously believe that these things NEVER existed on the planet?

OR, do you believe that they did exist but have gone extinct.

If you accept that they have gone extinct, then you MUST accept that nature is NOT constant. Change occurs.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#286 May 23, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
Your theory of evolution is claiming that the same biological reproductive species is compatible at first and over time the same biological reproductive species becomes incompatible and this violates the law of non-contradiction found in nature.
How do you determine if two things are biologically compatible?

Can you look at the DNA of a horse and a donkey and see if there are differences between the two of them?
Can you measure how many differences there are?

Can you COUNT the number of differences and say: "There are X number of differences between a horse and a donkey."

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#287 May 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all words are abstract concepts.
All words are information and information is empirical evidence that is observable and testable to a scientific method and that scientific method is not the one current scientist or scientific researcher use. This is why I am introducing a scientific method to information.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The word "tree" is not an ACTUAL tree. Nor is there such thing as a "tree".
The word “tree” is just as empirical as a physical tree. The laws of nature governs the information you put on topix just like it governs the tree outside. They both fall under the constant principle found in nature and both are subject to a scientific method because they are both empirical evidences.

Since the laws of nature is constant and when you use information to explain the laws of nature it must be constant also, if not you have contradictory statements about something/nature that is constant and this is where the scientific method called the law of non-contradiction depicts such information presented by scientist who interpret and attempt to explain how nature works.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many different kinds of tall woody plants with varying fruits and leaves living in many locations worldwide.
These plants share some common features, but no single one of them can be 100% defined as "THE TREE" that people mean when they say "tree".
Ditto "dog", "cat", "Henry", "France"
These are all LABELS not things.
Information is a thing also which means a label is a thing and the question is are you using information correctly to explain how nature works and this is where the scientific method of the law of non-contradiction tests information that you propose by applying the constant principle.

If your information is not constant about explaining a phenomena in nature then the law of non-contradiction will reject it. You can’t just go by a person interpretation along on explaining nature with information because humans are prone to fallacy, biased, prejudice etc…

This is why I am introducing the law of non-contradiction as a scientific method to test the information that is used to explain nature because information is empirical, observable, testable and is governed by the laws of nature just like the material evidence scientist observe and test in nature.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#288 May 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you determine if two things are biologically compatible?
The Biological Reproductive Species term!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you look at the DNA of a horse and a donkey and see if there are differences between the two of them?
Just because one cannot interpret the DNA code and determine what biological reproductive species it is by observing it with the eyes does not justify nature contradict itself! Nature don’t contradict itself and you using DNA to try and justify that nature contradict itself is crazy and pointless!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you COUNT the number of differences and say: "There are X number of differences between a horse and a donkey."
Your point?! NAURE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITS SELF and any information you use to try and say nature does is pointless and a waste of time!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#289 May 23, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no sabretooth tigers if nature is constant?
Had a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no dodo birds?
Had a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no mammoths?
Had a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are there no T-rexes?
Had a beginning and ending!
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you seriously believe that these things NEVER existed on the planet?[QUOTE]

This does not violate the constant principle found in nature just because they existed on this planet. The constant principle in nature demonstrates that ALL biological entities has a beginning and end.

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]<quo ted text>
OR, do you believe that they did exist but have gone extinct.[QUOTE]
Nature governs by the constant principle that ALL biological entities has a beginning and end!

[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]<quo ted text>
If you accept that they have gone extinct, then you MUST accept that nature is NOT constant. Change occurs.
WRONG! You obviously do not know what the constant principle is and neither do you know how to apply it in nature! The constant principles states to your above quote that ALL biological entities naturally has a beginning and end in this physical universe and since it’s constant it applies to ALL biological entities, now to say that this is not constant would be to imply that some biological entities has a beginning and end and some biological entities did not have a beginning and end.

If this is the case nature would not be constant! Once again, the constant principle states that ALL biological entities has a beginning and end in this physical universe and what you mentioned above follows the constant principle!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min Igor Trip 142,394
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr karl44 796
Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13) 7 hr Kong_ 455
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr Brian_G 14,590
Why natural selection can't work 7 hr Dogen 24
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 15 hr ChromiuMan 941
Darwin on the rocks Tue The Dude 832
More from around the web