Evolution - Yes it DID bloody well happen!

whatsupall:

How many times did you have to hit your head with a hammer before you were certain that every time you do so it will hurt?

The same principle is at work in science. It is a cumulative building of evidence. The first test result means almost nothing except that the hypothesis is probably on the right track. Evidence builds over successive congruent test results and the theory grows progressively stronger until it is considered a fact or near-fact.

If we followed your 'logic' we'd have to know everything before we could know anything. Of course, I suspect that you continue to smack a hammer into your forehead on a daily basis, disbelieving each time that it will hurt.

~Raithere
 
Raithere

Entirely incorrect, if there were evidence for the supernatural then science would have to accept it.
There is simply no evidence of the supernatural. It has nothing to do with faith.

Good point. But don't you think that if there were evidence of the supernatural, science would cease to exist as we know it ? There would simply be one answer to everything - the supernatural. That is why I stated science MUST rule it out.

Ruling out the supernatural is the one and only "faith" science can accept.
 
If something exists as part of the universe - even souls - then it is natural. Any "supernatural" thing which actually exists and has yet to be understood by science is therefore actually natural and will some day most likely be understood by science. Now, if by "supernatural" you mean something beyond the natural universe, which can not ever be understood by science, then you are talking pure imagination. If it exists, then it is part of this universe around us.
 
Originally posted by inspector
Evidence supporting the existence of the Christian God does not have to meet the criteria of science to be considered valid evidence. There are things that exist even today that cannot be quantified, tested in a lab, or put in a jar. Therefore, all knowledge cannot be ascertained by scientific scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Personally, I find that the only reliable methods are the scientific methodologies and logic. All else, while sometimes intriguing, is unreliable.

By what rules do you validate "evidence"? More importantly, how do you rule out what is untrue?

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Tyler


2) THe burden of proof, you must understand, is not on atheism - it's on theism. Allow me to explain. I claim a giant purple squid-rhino hybrid created man kind and the earth. Do you believe me? No? Why not? There is as much proof that my squid-rhino did everything then god did?
Click to expand...

WHAT? SQUID RHINO HAS AS MUCH PROOF AS GOD DID? WHAT A LIAR, DID SATAN WHISPERS THIS LIES TO YOUR MIND AGAIN? ARE YOU BEING DELUDED AGAIN? THAT PUNK, I WANT TO KICK HIS BUTT...A CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE......

WHERE IS THE PROOF OF SQUID RHINO?

SHOW ME HEALING, MIRACLES, "DOCUMENTED" IN THE NAME OF SQUID-
RHINO..AND IF YOU CLAIM THERE IS, IS THE HEALING AND MIRACLES
SCIENTIFICALLY INVESTIGATED?
HOW MANY DIED FOR SQUID-RHINO TO VERIFY ITS VALUE? MILLIONS?
HOW MANY FOLLOWERS OF SQUID-RHINO? MILLIONS?
IF SQUID-RHINO CREATED THE EARTH, HOW MANY TESTIFIED TO VERIFY ITS TRUTH OF CLAIM? MILLIONS?
IF SQUID-RHINO CLAIMED TO CREATE THE EARTH? DID HE CLAIM TO BE THE
INTELLIGENT DESIGNER? CAN YOU SHOW ME
DOCUMENTS OF HIS CLAIM?
DID SQUID-RHINO FULFILL SOME PROPHESY? A PROOF THAT HE IS ALL
KNOWING...BECAUSE THIS WILL MEAN HE CREATED THE UNIVERSE, HAVING ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE..
DID SQUID-RHINO FOUNDED A
CHURCH THAT IS STILL VERY FRESH AND ALIVE TODAY?




Originally posted by Tyler


And there's no way to disprove it? So why is my claim an illogical one? When you claim supernatural, you have the burden in a logical system of proving it. I don't have the burden of disproving it. Until you prove it, it is an illogical statement.
Click to expand...

AGAIN, A CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE.....THERE IS SO MUCH MUCH EVIDENCE FOR GOD, ZERO FOR SQUID-RHINO AND ATHEISM..IF YOU BELIEVE IN ATHEISM AND SQUID-RHINO WHICH DOESNT HAVE EVIDENCE AT ALL, THEN YOUR DELUSIONAL, DELUDED BY THE FATHER OF LIES AND MASTER OF DECEPTION, SATAN HIMSELF...........
 
You, and most other theists, are under the delusion that science has peaked. In other words, you are under the impression there is nothing more we can learn, that science will never explain anything evermore.
---------------------------------

I, unlike yourself, cannot speak for anyone other than myself. With that aside, I can confidently state that I view science as beneficial and fascinating. Science is not a threat to my beliefs (Christianity). I welcome technological advancements, when used to better humanity morally, and embrace scientific break-throughs and even archaeological discoveries which help explore past civilizations.

However, science has it's achilles heel. Inevitably, scientists will sometimes be just plain wrong because they make mistakes. Interpretation of evidence leaves room for error. Moreover, scientists aren't saints. They can be swayed by careerism, by money, by ego. Biases and prejudices can blind them. As individuals, they are no more or less flawed than those from any other walk of life. Once again, all knowledge cannot be ascertained by scientific scrutiny.

><>
 
Originally posted by Raithere
whatsupall:
The same principle is at work in science. It is a cumulative building of evidence. The first test result means almost nothing except that the hypothesis is probably on the right track. Evidence builds over successive congruent test results and the theory grows progressively stronger until it is considered a fact or near-fact.

If we followed your 'logic' we'd have to know everything before we could know anything. Of course, I suspect that you continue to smack a hammer into your forehead on a daily basis, disbelieving each time that it will hurt.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU...
WHEN SOMEONE TEST "SOIL A" TO BE 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THEN "SOIL A" IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THATS EVIDENCE, BECAUSE THAT CLAIM IS TESTED AS A FACT...
NOW "SOIL B" WASNT TESTED AT ALL, SO IF YOU SAY IT IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, YOUR JUST SPECULATING AND GUESSING, THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE...THIS IS FAITH...GOT IT RAITHERE?
THE RESULT OF THE TEST OF "SOIL A" MAY HAVE SUCCESIVE CONGRUENT RESULTS FOR ITSELF, THEREFORE IT IS A FACT THAT SAME SOIL IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THAT IS NOT A NEAR-FACT, IT IS A FACT, FOR THAT CLAIM IS EVIDENT...
BUT "SOIL B" WAS NEVER TESTED, YOUR JUST ASSUMING, GUESSING, AND SPECULATING THAT IT IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE BUT FAITH....

I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO KNOW EVERYTHING...I AM ASKING YOU TO KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY DONT...
 
Originally posted by inspector

I, unlike yourself, cannot speak for anyone other than myself. With that aside, I can confidently state that I view science as beneficial and fascinating. Science is not a threat to my beliefs (Christianity). I welcome technological advancements, when used to better humanity morally, and embrace scientific break-throughs and even archaeological discoveries which help explore past civilizations.

However, science has it's achilles heel. Inevitably, scientists will sometimes be just plain wrong because they make mistakes. Interpretation of evidence leaves room for error. Moreover, scientists aren't saints. They can be swayed by careerism, by money, by ego. Biases and prejudices can blind them. As individuals, they are no more or less flawed than those from any other walk of life. Once again, all knowledge cannot be ascertained by scientific scrutiny.
Click to expand...
See, this is where you diverge from rational thought and enter Lala Land. If a scientists makes a claim for his or her ego's sake, and it is not backed by facts, that scientist will fall. That is why research is published in peer-reviewed journals. You may have noticed (or you may not, depending on how ignorant and deluded you really are) that your computer actually works. This is because science relies on scientists developing theories and testing them to find truth. Not imagination and fairytales, but truth.
 
Inspector

With that aside, I can confidently state that I view science as beneficial and fascinating. Science is not a threat to my beliefs (Christianity). I welcome technological advancements, when used to better humanity morally, and embrace scientific break-throughs and even archaeological discoveries which help explore past civilizations.

Science, at some point, will contradict your beliefs - I've read some of your posts in which you've made this distinction. How can you accept science on one hand and reject it on the other ?

Moreover, scientists aren't saints. They can be swayed by careerism, by money, by ego. Biases and prejudices can blind them.

I think both of us can discard this line of reasoning simply because the same can be said for both sides and therefore should not be used for legitimate argument.
 
Originally posted by inspector
However, science has it's achilles heel. Inevitably, scientists will sometimes be just plain wrong because they make mistakes. Interpretation of evidence leaves room for error. Moreover, scientists aren't saints. They can be swayed by careerism, by money, by ego. Biases and prejudices can blind them. As individuals, they are no more or less flawed than those from any other walk of life. Once again, all knowledge cannot be ascertained by scientific scrutiny.

><>
Click to expand...

True true. Science can be downright wrong. There is a difference. If a scientist is downright wrong, another will THWAP him on the head and revise it. There's a very good system for correction of mistakes, which is pretty hard in a religious system. And science admits that it can be wrong. In fact, the defining characteristic of science is falsifiability. The 'achilles heel' is science's greatest strength.

Are scientists the only ones who are swayable and corruptable? I thought any human could be influenced like that...including theists...nothing special there...and prejudices and biases I think applies too...

And so what if scientists aren't saintly and love money? Isn't research considerably speeded by the promise of patents and other monetary goodies? Capitalism is basically built upon and depends on people being greedy. It's made the US the dominant force on the globe. Idealism never works. Just look at communism and its dreams of a utopia and where it got them.

Religion has its merits as well. It is a uniting force, and it also provides a stable tree that you can hang on to in times of a storm. Not that it's the only tree around, but it's a very good one.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos
 
Inspector, perhaps you should return to the classroom.

"For example, if we do not know how the universe was formed, is it possible that a supernatural cause could be responsible? If you say no, you are being illogical and prostituting your intellect to satisfy your presuppositions, since you have already stated that you do not know how the universe was formed. Therefore, the inclusion of God into the equation IS valid and holds equal weight (if not more) to any other naturalistic explanations. Pay attention in class while you are there at school. ;-)"

This is one of the most ridiculously stupid theistic comments I have read at sciforums that wasn't in semi-English (which most recent theists seem to write in, thank you for writting properly inspector). Is it possible god created it? Yup. Did I say it wasn't? Nope. Is there any proof to suggest this is true, though? Nope. Therefore, by Occam's, it is illogical to believe that a supernatural force created the universe. It's logical to say "I don't know".



"However, science has it's achilles heel. Inevitably, scientists will sometimes be just plain wrong because they make mistakes. Interpretation of evidence leaves room for error"

And religion, of course, doesn't leave room for mistake. See inspector, you continue to display the traits that made religion exist. You continue to state that lack of explination for the beginning of the universe is proof of god - poor, poor mistake.
 
"Therefore, by Occam's, it is illogical to believe that a supernatural force created the universe. It's logical to say "I don't know". "

Right. Many theists think when a scientist says "I don't know" that this disproves everything else the scientist has said. It doesn't. It simply means science hasn't progressed far enough to answer that question. As in evolution; we cannot answer complex questions such as how did the human knee evolve, or how did life start in the first place? But this certainly does not mean all of macro evolution is false. There are many things science does not yet have the answers to, but this doesn't mean the answers don't exist.
 
Originally posted by whatsupyall
YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU...
Click to expand...
Sorry, but once again you are mistaking your ignorance for mine.

WHEN SOMEONE TEST "SOIL A" TO BE 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THEN "SOIL A" IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THATS EVIDENCE, BECAUSE THAT CLAIM IS TESTED AS A FACT...
Click to expand...
First of all, soil would not test as 5 Billion years old. Soil is made primarily of organic components formed more recently than that. Secondly, not all minerals and rocks test at 5 Billion years old... only the oldest do. Now, what is happening is that scientists all over the world are constantly testing the age of the rocks they have found. They have tested rocks from the mountaintops, hills, valleys, caves, river-beds, the ocean floor, volcanoes, mines, drill holes, and driveways. Of all the rocks tested none has ever exceeded about 3.9 Billion years. Some minerals in sedimentary rock have been dated somewhat older at around 4.2 Billion years. The reason that we do not find terrestrial rocks older than this is because geologic activity essentially "resets" the clock by which we measure their age.

But we have found rocks older than 4.2 Billion years. The oldest rocks from the Moon are about 4.6 Billion years old, rocks from meteors have been found to be about 4.5 Billion years. Given the theory that the entire Solar System formed at approximately the same time and the rate of Geologic activity on Earth we calculate that the Earth is about 4.55 Billion years old, give or take a 100 million years or so.

BUT "SOIL B" WAS NEVER TESTED, YOUR JUST ASSUMING, GUESSING, AND SPECULATING THAT IT IS 5 BILLION YEARS OLD, THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE BUT FAITH....
Click to expand...
You are partially correct in this. There is a small factor of "speculation" here, however, calling it speculation or a guess is extremely misleading. This "fact" is not a simple guess, it is a highly educated guess supported by lots and lots of evidence. Additionally, there is not a single fact known that contradicts this. Like my example with the hammer, when you have enough information you do not have to test every single case.

I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO KNOW EVERYTHING...
Click to expand...
Yes, you are. What you are stating is that unless we test every rock on the entire planet we don't know 'absolutely'. While this is technically correct, it is a practical and probabilistic absurdity. If we set our level of proof this high for everything we would "know" absolutely nothing. You couldn't say that gravity is a fact because we haven't tested "everything". You couldn't say the sun will rise tomorrow because you haven't tested that yet.

The thing that is most telling about your method here is that you apply it only to that which you already disagree. If you used the same reasoning you've been applying to the age of the Earth to God you would not believe in God. If you say God is everywhere, how do you know? You haven't been everywhere have you? How do you know God is omnipotent; have you seen God do everything?

You use of reason is weak and fickle. Your intent is obvious. You are not seeking truth but only to support you own preconceptions.

~Raithere
 
Due to the ever-increasing adolescent behavior and comments displayed by both atheists and some so-called believers on this thread, if anyone would like a private discussion with me, please contact me via PM. The only requirement I have is that you must be knowledgeable (regarding biblical doctrine), respectful (although difficult for most atheists) and over the age of 10 (sorry Tyler, this excludes you).

><>
 
I highly suggest, inspector, that if you do continue debating this topic you begin to read what your opponent writes. You missed an extraordinarily large amount of my first post to you.

Out of curiosity, what did I say that was either rude or unknowledgable? You told me it was good I stayed in school and that I should pay attention in class. I said the same and then called your comment ridiculous (which it most definetly is. you claim somethign is logical but show no link between the ideas).
 
Originally posted by Raithere


"Sorry, but once again you are mistaking your ignorance for mine.

First of all, soil would not test as 5 Billion years old. Soil is made primarily of organic components formed more recently than that. Secondly, not all minerals and rocks test at 5 Billion years old... only the oldest do. Now, what is happening is that scientists all over the world are constantly testing the age of the rocks they have found. They have tested rocks from the mountaintops, hills, valleys, caves, river-beds, the ocean floor, volcanoes, mines, drill holes, and driveways. Of all the rocks tested none has ever exceeded about 3.9 Billion years. Some minerals in sedimentary rock have been dated somewhat older at around 4.2 Billion years. The reason that we do not find terrestrial rocks older than this is because geologic activity essentially "resets" the clock by which we measure their age."
Click to expand...

HAVE YOU TESTED THE SOIL MILES UNDERSEA? HAVE YOU TESTED THE SOIL 1,000 MILES UNDERGROUND? HAVE YOU TESTED THE SOIL 1,000 MILES UNDERGROUND IN ANTARTICA? YOU ONLY TOOK FEW SAMPLES, MAYBE NOT EVEN AN ACRE IS TESTED, THERE ARE OVER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES AROUND...WHY DO YOU SAY THAT "IS THE OLDEST ROCK" WHEN YOU DONT KNOW. IT IS THE OLDEST DISCOVERED SO FAR, YES I AGREE, BUT YOU CANNOT SAY IT IS THE OLDEST UNLESS U HAVE TESTED THE DATE OF ALL ROCKS...OK RAIT..EARLIER, I STATED THAT EARTH IS ABOUT 15 BILLION YRS AGO, THE TIME WHEN THE BIG BANG TOOK PLACE. ATHEISTS DISAGREED AND SAID "NO", ONLY THE PARTS THAT MAKES UP THE EARTH ARE THAT OLD, BUT U CANNOT CALL IT EARTH BECAUSE IT IS NOT COMPLETE YET.
SO IN THIS LOGIC, THEN EARTH CANNOT BE ABOUT 4 BILLION YEARS OLD BECAUSE U TESTED ONLY FEW ROCKS AND MINERALS, INDEED THOSE ROCKS ARE 4 BILLION YRS OLD, BUT NOT EARTH. FOR U HAVE TO TEST EVERY ROCKS THAT EXIST TO DETERMINE THE EXACT DATE OF EARTH, UNTIL YOU DO THAT, YOUR JUST SPECULATING...

Originally posted by Raithere

"But we have found rocks older than 4.2 Billion years. The oldest rocks from the Moon are about 4.6 Billion years old, rocks from meteors have been found to be about 4.5 Billion years. Given the theory that the entire Solar System formed at approximately the same time and the rate of Geologic activity on Earth we calculate that the Earth is about 4.55 Billion years old, give or take a 100 million years or so."
Click to expand...

ONCE AGAIN, HAVE YOU TESTED ALL ROCKS IN MOON? HAVE YOU? NO, SO THEN AGAIN THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SPECULATION. I DONT CARE IF U CALL IT A GOOD SPECULATION OR A GOOD GUESS, ITS STILL A GUESS NO MATTER HOW U VIEW IT...PERIOD..


Originally posted by Raithere

"You are partially correct in this. There is a small factor of "speculation" here, however, calling it speculation or a guess is extremely misleading. This "fact" is not a simple guess, it is a highly educated guess supported by lots and lots of evidence. Additionally, there is not a single fact known that contradicts this. Like my example with the hammer, when you have enough information you do not have to test every single case."
Click to expand...

NOW, YOU ADMIT THAT THIS IS A GUESS AND A SPECULATION...THATS ALL I NEED TO HEAR....

Originally posted by Raithere

Yes, you are. What you are stating is that unless we test every rock on the entire planet we don't know 'absolutely'. While this is technically correct, it is a practical and probabilistic absurdity. If we set our level of proof this high for everything we would "know" absolutely nothing. You couldn't say that gravity is a fact because we haven't tested "everything". You couldn't say the sun will rise tomorrow because you haven't tested that yet.
Click to expand...

NOW YOU ARE MAKING AN ANALOGY THAT BREAKS AGAINST THE LAW OF SCIENCE AND NATURE. GRAVITY IS PROVEN, AND SO IS THE SUN..THIS TOPIC IS FAR FROM BREAKING THE LAW OF PHYSICS...I AM SIMPLY SAYING THAT YOUR JUST SPECULATING BECAUSE U HAVENT TESTED ALL ROCKS, AND YOU ALREADY ADMIT TO THAT FACT, BUT YOU PREFER TO CALL IT "INTELLIGENT GUESS", BECAUSE OF REASONS GIVEN...

Originally posted by Raithere

The thing that is most telling about your method here is that you apply it only to that which you already disagree. If you used the same reasoning you've been applying to the age of the Earth to God you would not believe in God. If you say God is everywhere, how do you know? You haven't been everywhere have you? How do you know God is omnipotent; have you seen God do everything?
Click to expand...


WHAT IS THE LESSON YOU AND THE ATHEIST CHILDREN SHOULD LEARN HERE? THAT SCIENCE REQUIRES FAITH, AND YOU HAVE EVEN GREATER FAITH THAN ME, BUT YOU PUT FAITH IN SCIENCE, THATS YUR RELIGION, THATS YOUR GOD, YOUR IDOL...

YOU SAID THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF RESULTS WHICH DATES EARTH AROUND 4 BILLION YRS OR LESS, THIS IS THE SCIENTIFIC FINDING, I SAY ITS FINDINGS ARE "CHANCE" AND COINCIDENTAL. MAYBE 1 TO 100 RATIO, BUT DO YOU DARE DISAGREE WITH ME AND SAY ITS NOT CHANCE? WHY THEN DO YOU USE "CHANCE" AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND NATURE ON EARTH? THE RATIO TO THAT IS 1 TO 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000, INFINITY AND MORE...

WHICH ONE IS MORE BELIEVABLE? THAT OR 1 TO 100 RATIO? IF NATURE IS CHANCE, THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS CHANCE, INCLUDING THE TEST RESULTS OF ROCKS AND MINERALS...PERIOD...

FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, LET US JUST SAY THEY TESTED 1,000, AND THE RESULT DATE OF THE OLDEST DATE IS ABOUT 4 BILLION YRS OLD...YOU STILL HAVENT CHECKED 1,000 MILES UNDERGROUND AND THE REST OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES, SO U DONT KNOW...YOU CAN CALL THIS "GOOD SPECULATION", THATS YOUR OPINION, BUT THE FACT IS YOU HAVE FAITH IN IT...SO SCIENCE ALSO REQUIRES FAITH....


NOTE: DONT GET ME WRONG, I DO "BELIEVE" IN EVOLUTION, THE DATE OF EARTH, THE BIG BANG THEORY, YES I HAVE FAITH IN THEM, BUT FOR U TO CALL SUCH THEORIES "FACT" IS ABSURD, U HAVE BEEN LIED TO, THERE IS MUCH MORE SUBSTANCIAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF GOD THAN THEM, IF THEY ARE FACTS, THEN GOD IS FACTS TO ALL AS WELL. BUT SINCE TO SOME GOD ISNT VISIBLE, THEN HE REMAINS THEORY, OR A MYTH, OR TO THE ONES WHO EXPERIENCED HIM LIKE ME, HE REMAINS A FACT...IN SUMMARY, SCIENCE AND GOD REQUIRES FAITH....AND YOUR WRONG, I AM LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH, IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE IT, THEN I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR ALL ABOUT IT...:)
 
Last edited:
whatsup, I realize this is likely a mistake on my part to even try and reason with you, but....

Have you seen every human on earth? No? Then how do you know they all have a heart?

Have you seen every bluejay on earth? No? Then how do you know they can all fly?

Have you seen every tree on earth? No? Then how do you know one of them wasn't around before every other life form?
 
Originally posted by Tyler
whatsup, I realize this is likely a mistake on my part to even try and reason with you, but....

Have you seen every human on earth? No? Then how do you know they all have a heart?

Have you seen every bluejay on earth? No? Then how do you know they can all fly?

Have you seen every tree on earth? No? Then how do you know one of them wasn't around before every other life form?
Click to expand...

EVERY HUMANS ON EARTH THAT LIVED HAVE HEART, IF THEY DONT HAVE HEART, THEN THEY ARE DEAD, AND I HAVE SCIENCE TO BACK IT UP, I HAVE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP...

AND SOME BLUEJAYS CANT FLY, BECAUSE OF BIRTH DEFECTS AND/OR ACCIDENTS.I NEVER SAID THEY CAN ALL FLY..

YOUR ANALOGY IS STUPID, TRY AGAIN. :D

I NEVER SAID TREE WASNT AROUND EVERY LIFE FORM...THATS ANOTHER RESEARCH TO BE DONE...LOL...THEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE UP THEORIES TO SUPPORT YUR CLAIM...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top