Do you believe in God?

[berty1979]

Strittan- Very good videos, funny and make the point well 👍

 

[niky]

It's my autocorrect calm
Down
I meant to say that there's also no prove of evolution and Gradualism and all of the other ideas.

Yes there is. You don't even need to study the science in-depth to understand the proof.

Of course, we could go into the wonderful Wisdom of God in giving human beings a vestigial appendix and a tail-bone (coccyx), but then I'm pretty sure you have a good explanation for everything.

Not sure where you get off telling him what he can and cannot do tbh.

Uninformed opinion is one thing, but of course, posting false or misleading information is another. Not an AUP violation yet, but when one is asked to explain one's statements, especially when one presents it as fact, one is expected to answer or to retract said "fact" and admit it is merely opinion.

 

[Dennisch]

Well, we all know that women are made from a rib.

 

[Villain]

Well, we all know that women are made from a rib.

Just one. The rest are made from sugar, spice, and everything nice.

 

[Dennisch]

Just one. The rest are made from sugar, spice, and everything nice.

I'll bet you're single.

 

[nitrorocks]

Because there isn't proof. There not called theories. There called ideas. Just because there is a crater in the ground doesn't mean that it killed all of the dinosaurs.

 

[PeterJB]

Yes there is. You don't even need to study the science in-depth to understand the proof.

Of course, we could go into the wonderful Wisdom of God in giving human beings a vestigial appendix and a tail-bone (coccyx), but then I'm pretty sure you have a good explanation for everything.

While looking through the fossil record clearly shows that organisms have a tendency to adapt of over time, it doesn't complete the picture. Most people tend to overlook the major holes in the theory. Lets look at the Cambrian Explosion for example, The very sudden appearance of almost all modern animal phyla about 540 million years ago. This contrasts with Tree of Life, which hypothesises a gradual development and appearance of species, but at this point, insects, crabs, echinoderms, chordates, which all have strikingly different anatomies, all appeared fully developed out of nowhere within a surprisingly short space of time, it basically flips Darwin's Tree of Life on it's head.

My second is on Haeckel's Embryos. The reason his illustrations of Embryos of different species look so similar is because he only used I think 3 of the 7 vertebrate classes, and he also duplicated the same illustration several times for each embryo as he felt they looked more or less the same, closer examination shows striking differences between them, this puts a major dent his Darwin's theory of a common ancestor.

My final point is with the famous Miller experiment in which amino acids were created by lightning bolts in a theoretical early Earth atmosphere. The atmosphere used was a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapour. But interestingly enough there isn't any evidence for the Earth possessing an atmosphere of this kind at any point in it's history. When the experiment is repeated with an Earth like atmosphere, no amino acids grow.

There are further points I could make but it's late and it's difficult to explain things like this succinctly.

 

[Dennisch]

Because there isn't proof. There not called theories. There called ideas. Just because there is a crater in the ground doesn't mean that it killed all of the dinosaurs.

 

[Villain]

I'll bet you're single.

What's that supposed to mean?

Because there isn't proof. There not called theories. There called ideas. Just because there is a crater in the ground doesn't mean that it killed all of the dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs never existed. If they did they'd be in the Bible. Duh.

 

[Encyclopedia]

It's my autocorrect calm
Down
I meant to say that there's also no prove of evolution and Gradualism and all of the other ideas.

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. If you mean proof as in 100% certain, then of course no. That is impossible.

To call it just an idea though, is ignorant. Very ignorant. I suggest you do some studying.

Because there isn't proof. There not called theories. There called ideas. Just because there is a crater in the ground doesn't mean that it killed all of the dinosaurs.

It's called the theory of evolution. It is a scientific theory.

Or is this just your autocorrect again?

But this is all off-topic anyway.

 

[Pupik]

Dinosaurs never existed. If they did they'd be in the Bible. Duh.

You must have missed the part whereby the fossils were placed on Earth by Satan; otherwise, we wouldn't find them under all that rock and dirt.

I forget what part of the bible it's in. Probably the Pre-Testament.

 

[Dennisch]

Fossils are just rocks. Strangely formed rocks.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

While looking through the fossil record clearly shows that organisms have a tendency to adapt of over time, it doesn't complete the picture. Most people tend to overlook the major holes in the theory. Lets look at the Cambrian Explosion for example, The very sudden appearance of almost all modern animal phyla about 540 million years ago. This contrasts with Tree of Life, which hypothesises a gradual development and appearance of species, but at this point, insects, crabs, echinoderms, chordates, which all have strikingly different anatomies, all appeared fully developed out of nowhere within a surprisingly short space of time, it basically flips Darwin's Tree of Life on it's head.

Lack of fossil records =\= appears out of nowhere. Honestly, I don't understand where you get this from. Speciation occurs through various means and when the environment lacks major species in certain ecological roles it can happen quite rapidly; that is to say it still occurs over several millennia. If you can please post proof of "appeared fully developed out of nowhere" because I have certainly never read that in any biology text; especially with that phrasing.

My second is on Haeckel's Embryos. The reason his illustrations of Embryos of different species look so similar is because he only used I think 3 of the 7 vertebrate classes, and he also duplicated the same illustration several times for each embryo as he felt they looked more or less the same, closer examination shows striking differences between them, this puts a major dent his Darwin's theory of a common ancestor.

Heckel's embryos are laughed at in introductory biology as a "what not to do;" they certainly do not put a dent in the common ancestry theory quite frankly because it is insignificant and really doesn't swing the argument one way or the other. It is most definitely not a "major hole in the theory."

My final point is with the famous Miller experiment in which amino acids were created by lightning bolts in a theoretical early Earth atmosphere. The atmosphere used was a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapour. But interestingly enough there isn't any evidence for the Earth possessing an atmosphere of this kind at any point in it's history. When the experiment is repeated with an Earth like atmosphere, no amino acids grow.

There are further points I could make but it's late and it's difficult to explain things like this succinctly.

Researched and published in the 1950's, this experiment has been built upon and is still taught in biology not because it was 100% correct but because they were able to synthesize complex organic molecules out of simple chemicals. Because of this research other scientists have ventured into similar experiments with very promising results including the saturation of organic molecules in volcanic systems and synthesis in frozen water... Again, not a "major hole" in any theory but a stepping stone in scientific knowledge. Someone had to find out the 10 lb bowling ball and the 1/2 lb baseball fall and contact the ground at the same time, right? I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you either only had high school level biology several years ago or were taught entry level collegiate courses at a conservative institution... again several years ago. Am I far from the mark?

I won't go into homologous/analogous structures, receptor similarities, gene/loci identities, blah, blah the evidence is there if you read.

For those who do not believe in evolution... the next time you are at the Doctors office... talk to him/her about anti-biotics. Ask why it isn't a good idea to constantly prescribe them and the potential problems with feeding them to livestock. That is about the most basic example there is that anyone can understand.

 

[niky]

Because there isn't proof. There not called theories. There called ideas. Just because there is a crater in the ground doesn't mean that it killed all of the dinosaurs.

There is no crater in the ground linked to the extinction of the dinosaurs. The crater linked to the KT Boundary event is underwater.

While looking through the fossil record clearly shows that organisms have a tendency to adapt of over time, it doesn't complete the picture. Most people tend to overlook the major holes in the theory. Lets look at the Cambrian Explosion for example, The very sudden appearance of almost all modern animal phyla about 540 million years ago. This contrasts with Tree of Life, which hypothesises a gradual development and appearance of species, but at this point, insects, crabs, echinoderms, chordates, which all have strikingly different anatomies, all appeared fully developed out of nowhere within a surprisingly short space of time, it basically flips Darwin's Tree of Life on it's head.

This is much like shouts of "Scientism", only subtler.

"Gradualism" is not the only accepted method of evolution. In fact, scientists already know it isn't, as fossil evidence shows gradual evolutionary change, but gradual change within a large population really doesn't explain speciation.

You need environmental stresses, population isolation, and high mutation. In other words, catastrophes help drive evolution. An extinction level event removes long-entrenched dominant species who have successfully filled every niche. Like, say, Dinosaurs. Then, species which are left behind and which were less successful previously expand to fill the niches left behind by the previous dominant species. Then the new dominant species become entrenched until their own extinction events.

Humanity as we know it is the beneficiary of catastrophism. The birth of modern, big-brained humanity is linked to environmental stressors caused by Ice Ages, where our species was reduced to less than ten thousand members.

Without looking at Wikipedia, I can already tell you an extinction event preceded the Cambrian Explosion.

(Goes to look)

Found it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-Ediacaran_extinction

My second is on Haeckel's Embryos. The reason his illustrations of Embryos of different species look so similar is because he only used I think 3 of the 7 vertebrate classes, and he also duplicated the same illustration several times for each embryo as he felt they looked more or less the same, closer examination shows striking differences between them, this puts a major dent his Darwin's theory of a common ancestor.

Not as major as creationists believe it to be. Thankfully, we have photographs now. However inaccurate Haeckel's early drawings were, the similarities in embryonic structure are still fairly obvious.

My final point is with the famous Miller experiment in which amino acids were created by lightning bolts in a theoretical early Earth atmosphere. The atmosphere used was a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapour. But interestingly enough there isn't any evidence for the Earth possessing an atmosphere of this kind at any point in it's history. When the experiment is repeated with an Earth like atmosphere, no amino acids grow.

That is an incorrect assertion. Further experiments similar to the Miller experiment, taking into account the current best estimates we have of the early atmosphere have actually shown even more diversity in amino acid production than in the original experiment.

Let's also not forget that amino acids are relatively abundant throughout the Solar System, so there's really no evidence against amino acids forming without the participation of life and even less evidence suggesting that amino acid creation requires exactly the conditions specified in the Miller experiment.

-

An analogy is cold fusion. Just because cold fusion has been proven (so far) to be impossible without extreme energy inputs doesn't mean fusion itself does not occur.

 

[TankAss95]

Agreed. Though nobody is denying that science can't explain everything, so I have no issue with that bit.

It's the "science can't explain itself" bit which he's mentioned dozens of times now and makes absolutely zero sense. And dozens of times he's been asked to explain what it means, to no avail.

In fact, to that end:

TankAss - next time you come out with that phrase, I'm reporting it. You're welcome to discuss your views in this thread, but that line you keep spewing is ridiculous, meaningless, and having to constantly ask you what it means - and getting no response - is incredibly frustrating.

If I kept saying "religion cannot explain itself" over and over as some sort of response without justifying what I meant and ignoring people's requests to explain it, I'd fully expect to get called on it. I see no reason why you should be an exception.

So your choice: Either explain exactly what it means - in a satisfactory manner - or don't repeat it again.

Science cannot explain itself because it is based on assumptions, as I have said above. The scientific method cannot be scientifically tested in itself, therefore science cannot account or justify itself.
Absolute logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science, so in order to do science we need to use assumptions that cannot be accounted for by science itself.

As I said I am done with this thread temporarily, but I felt that it was necessary to reply due to the possibility of a AUP violation if I didn't.

 

[niky]

Science cannot explain itself because it is based on assumptions, as I have said above. The scientific method cannot be scientifically tested in itself, therefore science cannot account or justify itself.
Absolute logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science, so in order to do science we need to use assumptions that cannot be accounted for by science itself.

As I said I am done with this thread temporarily, but I felt that it was necessary to reply due to the possibility of a AUP violation if I didn't.

You have been told, repeatedly, that those assumptions that can be challenged are challenged for validity... and they pass. Thus the first argument is untenable.

The scientific method can be scientifically tested. Via the scientific method. If the method itself proves to be:

1. Universally applicable for all empirically observable phenomena, and

2. Consistent when done properly, then the method proves itself.

Absolute logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven? Ha. On the contrary, prove to me that two plus two equals five. Logical and mathematical truths are called those because they are consistently provable, completely undisprovable and universally applicable. To say that those assumptions are on shaky ground, you would have to show an example of those assumptions failing. So far, they don't.

Want me to prove a mathematical truth? The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Via scientific testing, I first create a set of right triangles as my experimental set. Then I test if the calculations work out. They do. I work out a method of plotting the relationship on a graph, and the graph will show me all possible data points. I take samples at a wide variety of data points, and this proves my theorem. I now have great confidence that it is true. To disprove it, you would have to find a single data point that goes against the grain, which is impossible.

Scientific method proves a mathematical truth. Whoops. I thought they were untestable?

To claim that math isn't provable is laughable, as you are posting this on a website programmed via a logical language based on mathematics, using a computer which uses your "unprovable" mathematics transmitting data over a network that utilizes known laws of physics and quantum physics in order to allow you to communicate with others.

Again, I reiterate: If you can't be bothered to come up with sound, logical reasoning to back up your claims, you can't simply post statements like that as fact. I suggest you start reading up on logic, mathematics and science and quit trying to find some sly schoolyard semantic sleight-of-hand to prove your point, because your attempts are still falling way short.

 

[Villain]

Science cannot explain itself because it is based on assumptions, as I have said above. The scientific method cannot be scientifically tested in itself, therefore science cannot account or justify itself.

 

[NITRODADDY]

Im not one to ever say never and I like to keep an open mind but, no.

I can't accept the idea of a higher being that has written a tapestry so rich and complicated.
I refuse to disagree with evidence about how it all began and how we are all here.
I just dont think there is anything up there. No matter how grim that sounds.

Look at the pic you have,senna believed in God.

 

[Exorcet]

Science cannot explain itself because it is based on assumptions, as I have said above. The scientific method cannot be scientifically tested in itself, therefore science cannot account or justify itself.
Absolute logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science, so in order to do science we need to use assumptions that cannot be accounted for by science itself.

As I said I am done with this thread temporarily, but I felt that it was necessary to reply due to the possibility of a AUP violation if I didn't.

Re:

Logic can be proven, and assumptions such as the speed of light in a vacuum example used in the video are either proven, or held while they provide adequate explanations of the physical world. If something better comes along, science updates. Also, the video was cut off.

You have been told, repeatedly, that those assumptions that can be challenged are challenged for validity... and they pass. Thus the first argument is untenable.

The scientific method can be scientifically tested. Via the scientific method. If the method itself proves to be:

1. Universally applicable for all empirically observable phenomena, and

2. Consistent when done properly, then the method proves itself.

Absolute logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven? Ha. On the contrary, prove to me that two plus two equals five. Logical and mathematical truths are called those because they are consistently provable, completely undisprovable and universally applicable. To say that those assumptions are on shaky ground, you would have to show an example of those assumptions failing. So far, they don't.

Want me to prove a mathematical truth? The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Via scientific testing, I first create a set of right triangles as my experimental set. Then I test if the calculations work out. They do. I work out a method of plotting the relationship on a graph, and the graph will show me all possible data points. I take samples at a wide variety of data points, and this proves my theorem. I now have great confidence that it is true. To disprove it, you would have to find a single data point that goes against the grain, which is impossible.

Scientific method proves a mathematical truth. Whoops. I thought they were untestable?

To claim that math isn't provable is laughable, as you are posting this on a website programmed via a logical language based on mathematics, using a computer which uses your "unprovable" mathematics transmitting data over a network that utilizes known laws of physics and quantum physics in order to allow you to communicate with others.

Again, I reiterate: If you can't be bothered to come up with sound, logical reasoning to back up your claims, you can't simply post statements like that as fact. I suggest you start reading up on logic, mathematics and science and quit trying to find some sly schoolyard semantic sleight-of-hand to prove your point, because your attempts are still falling way short.

Science is based on assumptions yes. One that have been tested over and over again and shown to be correct assumptions. There is no guesswork involved.

Also, you weren't in danger of an AUP violation by not replying. You were warned about a possible AUP violation that could occur for doing basically what you just did, ignoring other posts. It's up to the mods though.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Look at the pic you have,senna believed in God.

Some people like racecar drivers for what they do behind the wheel, not their beliefs.

 

[homeforsummer]

Science cannot explain itself because it is based on assumptions, as I have said above. The scientific method cannot be scientifically tested in itself, therefore science cannot account or justify itself.
Absolute logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science, so in order to do science we need to use assumptions that cannot be accounted for by science itself.

As I said I am done with this thread temporarily, but I felt that it was necessary to reply due to the possibility of a AUP violation if I didn't.

To claim that math isn't provable is laughable, as you are posting this on a website programmed via a logical language based on mathematics, using a computer which uses your "unprovable" mathematics transmitting data over a network that utilizes known laws of physics and quantum physics in order to allow you to communicate with others.

Again, I reiterate: If you can't be bothered to come up with sound, logical reasoning to back up your claims, you can't simply post statements like that as fact. I suggest you start reading up on logic, mathematics and science and quit trying to find some sly schoolyard semantic sleight-of-hand to prove your point, because your attempts are still falling way short.

So TankAss - we can be sure you're not going to come out with that phrase again then, are we? Since it's clearly incorrect, and has been every time you've used it?

 

[Hun200kmh]

Regardless of what I think about TankAss95's posting, I think you guys are wrong in your demands. By these standards, and because God is not proven (or provable IMO) by science, this reply to the threads question:

"Of course, without him nothing would exist"

... is also an infraction to the AUP. Time to issue 256 of those?

 

[TankAss95]

You have been told, repeatedly, that those assumptions that can be challenged are challenged for validity... and they pass. Thus the first argument is untenable.

The scientific method can be scientifically tested. Via the scientific method. If the method itself proves to be:

1. Universally applicable for all empirically observable phenomena, and

2. Consistent when done properly, then the method proves itself.

Absolute logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven? Ha. On the contrary, prove to me that two plus two equals five. Logical and mathematical truths are called those because they are consistently provable, completely undisprovable and universally applicable. To say that those assumptions are on shaky ground, you would have to show an example of those assumptions failing. So far, they don't.

Want me to prove a mathematical truth? The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Via scientific testing, I first create a set of right triangles as my experimental set. Then I test if the calculations work out. They do. I work out a method of plotting the relationship on a graph, and the graph will show me all possible data points. I take samples at a wide variety of data points, and this proves my theorem. I now have great confidence that it is true. To disprove it, you would have to find a single data point that goes against the grain, which is impossible.

Scientific method proves a mathematical truth. Whoops. I thought they were untestable?

To claim that math isn't provable is laughable, as you are posting this on a website programmed via a logical language based on mathematics, using a computer which uses your "unprovable" mathematics transmitting data over a network that utilizes known laws of physics and quantum physics in order to allow you to communicate with others.

Again, I reiterate: If you can't be bothered to come up with sound, logical reasoning to back up your claims, you can't simply post statements like that as fact. I suggest you start reading up on logic, mathematics and science and quit trying to find some sly schoolyard semantic sleight-of-hand to prove your point, because your attempts are still falling way short.

The mathematical statements of science, precisely by being assumed by every scientific theory, belong to the background assumptions of those theories. The empirical confirmation of those theories therefore does not extend to mathematical statements. It follows, then, that the statements of pure mathematics which underlie scientific theories are not tested when these theories are tested and so do not enjoy confirmation as a result of the theory’s confirmation.

As I have said, mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Mathematical truths are presupposed by science, and arguing that science could prove then would be arguing in a circle.

 

[Famine]

Regardless of what I think about TankAss95's posting, I think you guys are wrong in your demands. By these standards, and because God is not proven (or provable IMO) by science, this reply to the threads question:

"Of course, without him nothing would exist"

... is also an infraction to the AUP. Time to issue 256 of those?

There's a gulf of intent between posting something unproveable that you believe in and posting something unjustifiable that you think but which has been demonstrated false.

 

[TankAss95]

There's a gulf of intent between posting something unproveable that you believe in and posting something unjustifiable that you think but which has been demonstrated false.

I don't want to cause frustration, I just can't see why my statement was wrong.

 

[Jubby]

Absolute logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven? Ha. On the contrary, prove to me that two plus two equals five. Logical and mathematical truths are called those because they are consistently provable, completely undisprovable and universally applicable. To say that those assumptions are on shaky ground, you would have to show an example of those assumptions failing. So far, they don't.

Great point niky. Those proofs and truths are great, but it brings into light what actually is at the point of this debate: perspective. 2+2= 4 and 2+2=11, It depends which way you look at it, which measure you use. That example is relatively simplistic. You look at something complex like 256*256 and the potential answers are enormous when justified. Some/most answers would be vilified or disputed because they aren't the norm, but doesn't mean it isn't possible or truthful. Isn't math great?!

 

[BobK]

Great point niky. Those proofs and truths are great, but it brings into light what actually is at the point of this debate: perspective. 2+2= 4 and 2+2=11, It depends which way you look at it, which measure you use. That example is relatively simplistic. You look at something complex like 256*256 and the potential answers are enormous when justified. Some/most answers would be vilified or disputed because they aren't the norm, but doesn't mean it isn't possible or truthful. Isn't math great?!

Actually that's more of a notational thing than perspective, at least that's how I see it. 2 + 2 = 4 is true in decimal, octal, hexadecimal, or any other notation system using more than four as a base. 2 + 2 = 11 is true in ternary (base 3) notation. But both are saying the exact same thing, and both are correct. 2 + 2 = 5, however, isn't true in any notational system I know of; one could construct such a system of course, but one would also have to change some generally agreed upon conventions.

 

[Denur]

The mathematical statements of science, precisely by being assumed by every scientific theory, belong to the background assumptions of those theories. The empirical confirmation of those theories therefore does not extend to mathematical statements. It follows, then, that the statements of pure mathematics which underlie scientific theories are not tested when these theories are tested and so do not enjoy confirmation as a result of the theory’s confirmation.

As I have said, mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Mathematical truths are presupposed by science, and arguing that science could prove then would be arguing in a circle.

Next time, could you please indicate that you are directly quoting someone else? Thanks.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8470&printer_friendly=1

Sober emphasizes that to reject holism is not to adopt the positivistic alternative of testing isolated hypotheses. Confirmation/disconfirmation relations are really three-place relations: a hypothesis H is confirmed by an observation O relative to background assumptions A. The shared background assumptions of competing hypotheses are not tested by the observations and therefore are not confirmed/disconfirmed along with H. Now the mathematical statements of science, precisely by being assumed by every scientific theory, belong to the background assumptions of those theories. The empirical confirmation of those theories therefore does not extend to mathematical statements. It follows, then, that the statements of pure mathematics which underlie scientific theories are not tested when these theories are tested and so do not enjoy confirmation as a result of the theory’s confirmation.

 

[TankAss95]

Next time, could you please indicate that you are directly quoting someone else? Thanks.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8470&printer_friendly=1

So, I've been told I'm quoting too much, then told I'm not quoting sufficiently?

 

[Denur]

So, I've been told I'm quoting too much, then told I'm not quoting sufficiently?

Whether you quote too much or not, is a matter of taste. I don't mind. But when you do, it would be nice to indicate that you are quoting and who and possibly with a URL.
This time it was quite obvious that you were quoting (not quite your usual writing style), so Google brought me easily to its source.