Fallacies in Christianity

[mc4]

evolution has nothing to with the creation of life


so what do you have against their method of replication? do you think you know better than the scientists working on the project?


and there is nothing to suggest there was a "finetuning" of the universe. the idea is that we adapted, not the other way around. so far the anthropic principal makes the least amount of assumptions, so it is the accepted idea.


the WHOLE POINT of my caps was to put emphasis on the fact that NO SCIENTIST BELIEVES ANY OF THEIR THEORIES ARE ABSOLUTELY TRUE. they know it is impossible to prove a theory. i don't need to give you a survey because they ALL know that to prove something, it would need to be consistent with all possible observations in relation to the theory. which means we would need to collect all of those possible observations. and we all know this is impossible. there is no faith in science.


i'm not very interested in a debate over the definition of "create"

oops here is the real link: http://www.newscientist.com/article...t-made-our-universe.html?full=true&print=true

if evolution has no attempt to explain where life came from then why argue God doesn't exist? It shouldn't matter to you if he does or doesn't because as someone who believes in evo all you care about is the process and not where it originally came from.

I don't think i know better than the scientists working on it, but i read what the scientists that have worked on it say, and i read what scientists who disagree with it say. So far those that disagree make more sense to me (because the scientists that study self replication, rna etc, haven't proved it). Do you presume to think you know more than the scientists that believe in design and study biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc that disagree with evo?

I'm sorry about not being clear. So just do me a favor and clear this up. When you say "theory" are you reffering to science as a whole, or theories within science. Obviously no scientist will say their theory is absolutely true because it's a theory, it hasn't been proven. If you believe however without proof that this theory is still correct, then sorry that's faith, look up the definitions for it if you want. In science, something that is proven doesn't require faith, because it is proven. like how fast light travels for instance. thats proven consistently and is a "fact".

i tried to read the free lunch thing but i'm pretty tired and don't feel like it, some other time.

sorry about the dub post

 

[arrowhead]

if evolution has no attempt to explain where life came from then why argue God doesn't exist? It shouldn't matter to you if he does or doesn't because as someone who believes in evo all you care about is the process and not where it originally came from.

i'm not saying that a god doesn't exist (although the christian one doesn't), but our lack of understanding for how things came to be does not mean god exists.

I don't think i know better than the scientists working on it, but i read what the scientists that have worked on it say, and i read what scientists who disagree with it say. So far those that disagree make more sense to me (because the scientists that study self replication, rna etc, haven't proved it). Do you presume to think you know more than the scientists that believe in design and study biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc that disagree with evo?

first, no "real" scientist disagrees with evolution. and you read the publications of too many christian scientists

I'm sorry about not being clear. So just do me a favor and clear this up. When you say "theory" are you reffering to science as a whole, or theories within science. Obviously no scientist will say their theory is absolutely true because it's a theory, it hasn't been proven. If you believe however without proof that this theory is still correct, then sorry that's faith, look up the definitions for it if you want. In science, something that is proven doesn't require faith, because it is proven. like how fast light travels for instance. thats proven consistently and is a "fact".

that would be faith, but it is implied in every scientific theory that it could be wrong, and they are always subject to new observations. so there is no faith.

the speed of light has always been observed to be ~300km/sec, but it isn't PROVEN. there could very well be a condition where it travels slower or faster and we just don't know about it

 

[mc4]

i'm not saying that a god doesn't exist (although the christian one doesn't), but our lack of understanding for how things came to be does not mean god exists.


first, no "real" scientist disagrees with evolution. and you read the publications of too many christian scientists


that would be faith, but it is implied in every scientific theory that it could be wrong, and they are always subject to new observations. so there is no faith.

the speed of light has always been observed to be ~300km/sec, but it isn't PROVEN. there could very well be a condition where it travels slower or faster and we just don't know about it

well i'm glad you clarified that you don't necessarily disagree. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, see no how that can work on either side of the argument? you just said it actually. Bold statement about the christian God btw, i won't even bother with that one.

how can you say that no real scientist disagrees with evolution. many publications i read aren't from "christian scientists" at all. you're just bashing, not proving anything by that statement. There are many scientists who aren't religious at all but still believe in intelligent design, get real man.

um i don't get what you're saying about theory. yes theories are subject to new observation, and theories can change. but since theories aren't proven, then to believe in a theory requires faith. dude go look up the definition of faith lol there are alot of definitions and guess what, they aren't all religious.

you could say that nonsense about anything. all you're doing is adding if statements. "there could be a condition where light travels slower or faster..." you could say that about anything. doesn't mean it's correct. we know the speed of gravity on earth to be -9.87 m/s2 on earth, but there could be somewhere no one has traveled where that speed is different... see what i just did there lol

 

[arrowhead]

do you know what evolution is? it's the change in species over time. we directly observe it. to to a university if you want to see it happening. anybody who disagrees with its applicability to life on earth is ignorant. and any "scientist" that believes in intelligent design does not understand the purpose of science or how it works, and therefore is not a scientist. and i'd like for you to provide sources for those articles where scientists claim evolution doesn't happen.

the whole idea around science is never to BELIEVE in a theory.

yes, you can. but that "nonsense" is unfortunately true and makes things very confusing for us. btw, the gravity isn't the same everywhere on earth

 

[Mewter]

i'm not saying that a god doesn't exist (although the christian one doesn't), but our lack of understanding for how things came to be does not mean god exists.

mc4
well i'm glad you clarified that you don't necessarily disagree. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, see no how that can work on either side of the argument? you just said it actually. Bold statement about the christian God btw, i won't even bother with that one.

Disproving the Bible disproves its god? Nah... that can't be!

first, no "real" scientist disagrees with evolution. and you read the publications of too many christian scientists

how can you say that no real scientist disagrees with evolution. many publications i read aren't from "christian scientists" at all. you're just bashing, not proving anything by that statement. There are many scientists who aren't religious at all but still believe in intelligent design, get real man.

You're right, for once, mc4. Get real, arrowhead! Don't ignore those hundreds of anti-evolutiion biologists! Don't bash the 20% or less percentage of biologists who don't believe in evolution! Wait, 20%? Hmm... that's way less than mc4 predicted....

that would be faith, but it is implied in every scientific theory that it could be wrong, and they are always subject to new observations. so there is no faith.

There's hope, to an extent, that it will work, in other words, but not faith that it does work. They are always trying to find a better theory... which is the opposite of religion... sadly.

the speed of light has always been observed to be ~300km/sec, but it isn't PROVEN. there could very well be a condition where it travels slower or faster and we just don't know about it

As opposed to

mc4
you could say that nonsense about anything. all you're doing is adding if statements. "there could be a condition where light travels slower or faster..." you could say that about anything. doesn't mean it's correct. we know the speed of gravity on earth to be -9.87 m/s2 on earth, but there could be somewhere no one has traveled where that speed is different... see what i just did there lol

Unfortunately, Einstein had predicted that the speed of light always remains constant, and gravity varies. So no, I don't see what you did there.

Oh, and mc4....
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080629035008AAo8ZRB
Just an article about phony facts that creationists and "intelligent designers" make the public believe... somehow.
Also, how do you think you know more about evolution than the 80% or more majority of biologists who study it for a living? Just a question.

 

[arrowhead]

You're right, for once, mc4. Get real, arrowhead! Don't ignore those hundreds of anti-evolutiion biologists! Don't bash the 20% or less percentage of biologists who don't believe in evolution! Wait, 20%? Hmm... that's way less than mc4 predicted....

wow, 20%? even so, the people who study intelligent design aren't scientists. intelligent design isn't even falsifiable, which is a requirement for any scientific hypothesis.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hi.

I shall most definitely check out Bell's and Oistrach's recordings for Sibelius' violin concerto. I'm always on the prowl for good music, lol. I had listened to one version I could find on youtube (definitely not the best way to listen to music, but while at work, it's the only way I can), and I think I listened to a Hillary Hahn or something like that. It sounded pretty good, but her interpretation seemed...I don't know, it just didn't have much personality to it I guess. But, then again, I was listening to it on youtube, while working, so that might've influenced my thoughts of it. However, it seems like a technically demanding piece, so I commend you for your level of skill.

I don't think that religion is an experiment, I do think it is an hypothesis though. Pretty much every belief and assumption is an hypothesis, whether its positing the possibility of a supernatural creator and controller of the cosmos, to thinking that you definitely did leave your shoes in the closet yesterday. I had an hypothesis that the computer I built would work fine and would not need any replacing of the parts, but, unfortunately, that turned out to be false (sigh). I have an hypothesis that when I let go of a cup, gravity will pull it to the floor. The scientific process is simply the formulating of an hypothesis, performing a test or an experiment, and seeing whether it validates or disproves the hypothesis you formulated. Rather straight forward in theory, but in reality, can be rather tricky and complicated for certain hypothesii. Often at the end of the process, if you've disproved your first hypothesis, you come up with a new one, then test the new one, and then repeat the whole process again if, once again, you disprove the hypothesis. The scientific process can, and often is, applied to rather ordinary and simple things. Like, to take my computer once again as an example, it kept freezing if I tried to play a game. So I formulated the hypothesis that the drivers I had for my GPU were out of date, and that installing the latest ones would solve the problem. I then did install the new drivers then proceeded to test my hypothesis by once again trying to play my game and seeing if it froze or not. It, unfortunately, turned out to be false, as the game froze anyway, thus prompting me to come up with a new hypothesis (that the GPU card was faulty), testing it (trying to play with a different GPU card my friend provided me), and seeing whether it was true or not (whether the game froze with the other card or not, which, ultimately, it did not).

Religion is not exempt from this process, it just refuses to comply to it. They formulate an hypothesis, that there is a supernatural deity that will reward/punish forever if you do or don't do certain things, and then does not attempt to test it and, in fact, actively prevents people from testing it (even though the bible seems, once again, iffy about it http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/test.html). Religion simply states a possible hypothesis, then asks for people to believe in it without testing or proving any sort of validity for it in the first place.

And, unfortunately, the bible is a package deal, particularly for those people who believe that it's inerrant. The old testament is just as relevant as the new testament in the bible. To disprove or lessen the authority of a part of the bible casts doubt on the authenticity and authority of the whole thing.

Also, emotion is not illogical. It's a completely logical mental process, if you understand it and why you feel emotions in the first place. However, due to the "fast, rough, and dirty" nature of the amygdala's and limbic system's calculations, the responses it arrives at might be incorrect or wrong for particular siutations, thus giving the appearance of being illogical.

Don't worry about your posts being long. If no one yelled at me for the length of some of my posts, then you definitely have nothing to worry about, lol.



I didn't take that from that phrase at all. In fact, I've never even heard that before. It also strikes me as an odd and contradictory statement, since, if, as most Christians posit, that god is omnipotent (a notion that I think I've proved to be an impossibility, but am simply indulging in here for the sake of argument), we're either omnipotent now (hardly), or that somehow god was not omnipotent then, yet somehow became so now, as you can't be omnipotent then somehow "improve" your omnipotence.

Yea...I do not like Hillary Hahn's interpretation of the Sibelius. She's too...sappy? I don't know...but I do know that it's not a piece to over-exaggerate vibrato in. The Sibelius should definitely NOT sound like a sonata, ja? Anyways, you should really keep practicing the cello, because if you played the Elgar well, then you must have been really good. I hope you don't lose that talent.

Anyways, I wouldn't doubt that you've never heard that phrase. It's from a prophet in my church. In fact, it might have been Joseph Smith. I'll have to check that out though, because I really don't remember who said it. However...urgh. I don't really want to explain this whole thing, but...here's a small piece of it. When we came to Earth, we had a veil placed over our eyes, so that things of a spiritual nature are hidden from us, which is also why we do not remember where we came from. It is because of this veil that we do not know everything about the Plan of Salvation, etc. When it is removed from us...we will remember everything about it. That doesn't mean we'll become omnipotent. We must gain our own intelligence while in this life.

And what I meant about emotion being illogical wasn't quite that. I already said that I didn't want someone to explain emotion to me in a scientific way, because...well, don't you think that it's more than that? I don't know, but to me feeling love is not just some signal in my brain. Your emotions cause you to fight logical reasoning sometimes. If you've ever been in love, then you would know that it makes you do STUPID things sometimes. It doesn't necessarily mean the emotion itself is illogical, but it will cause you to be illogical and to think illogically. Make more sense?

I am well aware that the Bible is a one package deal, trust me. I read it all the time. But I can still say that the Old Testament is much different from the New Testament, and I'm still gonna say it's my least favorite book of scripture to read. I apologize if I said something to that effect. I honestly don't remember though as it's been a while, heh...

Hmmm, your theory on religion is very interesting. I like it. However on the not testing bit...at least in my church, there are ways of testing your faith, to see whether or not what you are following is really true. It does not involve empirical evidence though, if you will. While in other churches that may be how it is, mine does not ask you to mindlessly follow it and say you're saved if you do.

P.S. Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[RDK]

You're right, for once, mc4. Get real, arrowhead! Don't ignore those hundreds of anti-evolutiion biologists! Don't bash the 20% or less percentage of biologists who don't believe in evolution! Wait, 20%? Hmm... that's way less than mc4 predicted....

I know you're employing sarcasm here, but it's not even close 20%. No real scientist believes evolution doesn't happen.

According to several NAS polls, the number of scientist who actually believe in a higher deity is somewhere around roughly 5%, if that.

]However on the not testing bit...at least in my church, there are ways of testing your faith, to see whether or not what you are following is really true. It does not involve empirical evidence though, if you will.

Then it's not a true test and is not falsifiable.

Dear Christ, I cannot believe how badly you guys butcher scientific terms and concepts. Please look things up before coming in here with an argument.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

I basically just said that RDK. I know that religion can't physically test a feeling you get that testifies to you if something is true. That kind of thing simply can't be tested scientifically. The definition of test is to try something out, to analyze something, etc. To try out religion and its teachings is a test, no? Sounds like it fits the definition of test to me. Also, hearing you say dear Christ was really quite funny. No offense or puns intended. I just thought that was kind of funny.

 

[Mewter]

wow, 20%? even so, the people who study intelligent design aren't scientists. intelligent design isn't even falsifiable, which is a requirement for any scientific hypothesis.

I was just marking a definite "at least" border. Remember, I said "less than" or "more than."

Erich
To try out religion and its teachings is a test, no?

It's not falsifiable, though. All you get out of that is opinion. It's pretty much like the religion itself.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Hmmm...OK. Yet another scientific fact reveals itself to me. I really wasn't sure what all this falsifiable was about, but you know, it makes sense now. My bad for being a moron.

 

[mc4]

do you know what evolution is? it's the change in species over time. we directly observe it. to to a university if you want to see it happening. anybody who disagrees with its applicability to life on earth is ignorant. and any "scientist" that believes in intelligent design does not understand the purpose of science or how it works, and therefore is not a scientist. and i'd like for you to provide sources for those articles where scientists claim evolution doesn't happen.

the whole idea around science is never to BELIEVE in a theory.

yes, you can. but that "nonsense" is unfortunately true and makes things very confusing for us. btw, the gravity isn't the same everywhere on earth

Source-"our universe: Accident or Design?" check it out. This gets so old so fast. ok, since we have been using the term evo as a whole and not breaking it down there is confusion. The only part of evolution, the changing in species over time, that i disagree with is the big changes or macro evolution. Yes we do witness the small changes. Animals do adapt to there environments, that no one can argue. Infact darwins finches proved just that, that animals adapt to there environments. I don't believe in the big changes, no one has ever seen it happen. There you go.

Yet people still believe in theories. Einstein believed in relativity before he could prove it, and the list goes on.

Disproving the Bible disproves its god? Nah... that can't be!


You're right, for once, mc4. Get real, arrowhead! Don't ignore those hundreds of anti-evolutiion biologists! Don't bash the 20% or less percentage of biologists who don't believe in evolution! Wait, 20%? Hmm... that's way less than mc4 predicted....


There's hope, to an extent, that it will work, in other words, but not faith that it does work. They are always trying to find a better theory... which is the opposite of religion... sadly.


As opposed to

Unfortunately, Einstein had predicted that the speed of light always remains constant, and gravity varies. So no, I don't see what you did there.

Oh, and mc4....
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080629035008AAo8ZRB
Just an article about phony facts that creationists and "intelligent designers" make the public believe... somehow.
Also, how do you think you know more about evolution than the 80% or more majority of biologists who study it for a living? Just a question.

I didn't predict any percentage of biologists that don't agree with it. The point was biology is a type of science. And who would think there are biologists that don't agree with evo? Wow thats crazy. I had a biology teacher who believed in creation. I could care less if it's a minority. I said once that there have been many things taught as fact in the past that the majority believed and were later proven as wrong. Yet those teachings were still "facts" when accepted.

Check the definitions for faith.

the places where gravity isn't the same have different mediums, like water for instance. Gravity isn't the same under water because of buoyancy, which pushes in the opposite direction. Gravity is constant on earth but there are drag forces that slow things down, "friction, air resistance". A planets size will determine the speed of gravity on that planet. Gravity depends on the planet, but here on earth and any other planet the speed will be constant, however the speed differs for planets since size affects the speed.

Do you know more than the scientists who disagree? I guess you could think yes since you agree with the "majority" (which are only in the area of biology so you guys basically think only biologists are real scientists apparantly) but obviously you don't because the people who disagree study just as much as the people who agree.

wow, 20%? even so, the people who study intelligent design aren't scientists. intelligent design isn't even falsifiable, which is a requirement for any scientific hypothesis.

I know you're employing sarcasm here, but it's not even close 20%. No real scientist believes evolution doesn't happen.

According to several NAS polls, the number of scientist who actually believe in a higher deity is somewhere around roughly 5%, if that.



Then it's not a true test and is not falsifiable.

Dear Christ, I cannot believe how badly you guys butcher scientific terms and concepts. Please look things up before coming in here with an argument.

Hmmm...OK. Yet another scientific fact reveals itself to me. I really wasn't sure what all this falsifiable was about, but you know, it makes sense now. My bad for being a moron.

People don't study "intelligent design" intelligent design isn't a science. People study science and come to the conclusion that there is intelligent design.

20% came from that cute yahoo article he posted. Sorry but you gut feeling about how many people believe evo isn't true. So you only believe a real scientist is a biologist who believes in evolution basically, or any other science that deals with evolution. Yeah that makes alot of sense...

I seriously doubt whatever poll you are talking about is correct.

 

[arrowhead]

Source-"our universe: Accident or Design?" check it out. This gets so old so fast. ok, since we have been using the term evo as a whole and not breaking it down there is confusion. The only part of evolution, the changing in species over time, that i disagree with is the big changes or macro evolution. Yes we do witness the small changes. Animals do adapt to there environments, that no one can argue. Infact darwins finches proved just that, that animals adapt to there environments. I don't believe in the big changes, no one has ever seen it happen. There you go.

how would you distinguish big changes from small changes? there isn't a clear distinction between micro and macro evolution. they are all just changes in species. and if you don't accept that answer, lots of small changes is the same as a big change. so if you accept microevolution, you should accept macroevolution.

Yet people still believe in theories. Einstein believed in relativity before he could prove it, and the list goes on.

einstein didn't blindly latch on to relativity without reason. he had observations that led to it, and if he found an inconsistency, he would've (probably) rejected it.

but he did believe that the universe is static, and that ended up being the biggest mistake he's ever made.

I didn't predict any percentage of biologists that don't agree with it. The point was biology is a type of science. And who would think there are biologists that don't agree with evo? Wow thats crazy. I had a biology teacher who believed in creation. I could care less if it's a minority. I said once that there have been many things taught as fact in the past that the majority believed and were later proven as wrong. Yet those teachings were still "facts" when accepted.

any "scientist" who believes in something unfalsifiable is not a scientist. faith and religion goes against everything science stands for

Check the definitions for faith.

no, i think you are the one that needs to check your terms. faith is belief without evidence. there is no room for that in science. EVERYTHING is subject to evidence. the scientist may have faith in the success of his hypothesis, but if he lets that interfere with his work, it isn't science.

the places where gravity isn't the same have different mediums, like water for instance. Gravity isn't the same under water because of buoyancy, which pushes in the opposite direction. Gravity is constant on earth but there are drag forces that slow things down, "friction, air resistance". A planets size will determine the speed of gravity on that planet. Gravity depends on the planet, but here on earth and any other planet the speed will be constant, however the speed differs for planets since size affects the speed.

the buoyancy under water doesn't decrease the gravitational pull on an object, it only counters it. and since gravity is dependent on the mass and distance, it's not going to be a constant everywhere on earth. just close to a constant.

Do you know more than the scientists who disagree? I guess you could think yes since you agree with the "majority" (which are only in the area of biology so you guys basically think only biologists are real scientists apparantly) but obviously you don't because the people who disagree study just as much as the people who agree.

the people who[/quote]
you still haven't given me any articles showing me biologists who don't believe in evolution. i bet it's because they're all christian.

People don't study "intelligent design" intelligent design isn't a science. People study science and come to the conclusion that there is intelligent design.

what part of INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS UNFALSIFIABLE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS don't you understand?

and you just contradicted yourself. "intelligent design isn't a science"

20% came from that cute yahoo article he posted. Sorry but you gut feeling about how many people believe evo isn't true. So you only believe a real scientist is a biologist who believes in evolution basically, or any other science that deals with evolution. Yeah that makes alot of sense...

I seriously doubt whatever poll you are talking about is correct.

anybody who understands the basics of evolution and chooses to go with intelligent design isn't a scientist. i got that from logic, not polls.

 

[RDK]

People don't study "intelligent design" intelligent design isn't a science. People study science and come to the conclusion that there is intelligent design.

20% came from that cute yahoo article he posted. Sorry but you gut feeling about how many people believe evo isn't true. So you only believe a real scientist is a biologist who believes in evolution basically, or any other science that deals with evolution. Yeah that makes alot of sense...

I seriously doubt whatever poll you are talking about is correct.

The fact that you doubt the veracity of several polls from the National Acadamy of Sciences furthers our point that you're a moron and have no idea what you're talking about. You're trying to make it seem like there's a controversy among scientists when in reality there is none.

There are plenty of scientific fields that aren't biology that strongly back evolution.

I'm not even going to touch your little nitpicking about micro and macro, since, once again, it's obvious you have no idea how evolution actually works. When you're done nosing around Answers in Genitals for arguments, come and tell me.

 

[Mewter]

Source-"our universe: Accident or Design?" check it out. This gets so old so fast. ok, since we have been using the term evo as a whole and not breaking it down there is confusion. The only part of evolution, the changing in species over time, that i disagree with is the big changes or macro evolution. Yes we do witness the small changes. Animals do adapt to there environments, that no one can argue. Infact darwins finches proved just that, that animals adapt to there environments. I don't believe in the big changes, no one has ever seen it happen. There you go.

Again, that's just silly! We have a fosssil record, and undeniable proof for microevolution, along with logic!

I didn't predict any percentage of biologists that don't agree with it. The point was biology is a type of science. And who would think there are biologists that don't agree with evo? Wow thats crazy. I had a biology teacher who believed in creation. I could care less if it's a minority. I said once that there have been many things taught as fact in the past that the majority believed and were later proven as wrong. Yet those teachings were still "facts" when accepted.

Earlier, you spoke that a large number of scientists opposed evolution. I was just trying to show it was smaller than you thought.

Check the definitions for faith.

Something with no proof. Okay.

the places where gravity isn't the same have different mediums, like water for instance. Gravity isn't the same under water because of buoyancy, which pushes in the opposite direction. Gravity is constant on earth but there are drag forces that slow things down, "friction, air resistance". A planets size will determine the speed of gravity on that planet. Gravity depends on the planet, but here on earth and any other planet the speed will be constant, however the speed differs for planets since size affects the speed.

Do you know more than the scientists who disagree? I guess you could think yes since you agree with the "majority" (which are only in the area of biology so you guys basically think only biologists are real scientists apparantly) but obviously you don't because the people who disagree study just as much as the people who agree.

Ah, but the people who do agree study just as much(maybe even more), and so the evidence gathers a larger group, right? Of course.

People don't study "intelligent design" intelligent design isn't a science. People study science and come to the conclusion that there is intelligent design.

Let's not bother with the major contradictions found in this sentence(s).

20% came from that cute yahoo article he posted. Sorry but you gut feeling about how many people believe evo isn't true. So you only believe a real scientist is a biologist who believes in evolution basically, or any other science that deals with evolution. Yeah that makes alot of sense...

No, a real biologist is one with an actual (good) background in biology. And more than 80% of them feel that evolution is true.

I seriously doubt whatever poll you are talking about is correct.

Then there's no way to get through to you with logic and evidence/proof/facts/reality, eh?

Also, the experiment "control" thing. The more general the subject, the less controls you have, right? The more specific, the more limits you put. That's the generality. You are trying to recreate a specific portion, and not the entire set of everything, itself. See my drift? If you examine a packing pellet with a strange shape and try to replicate it, you are going to have to place lots of controls on packaging and factory work and stuff like that. If you want to replicate a general idea, then you place less controls. No need to say that the pellet was "fine-tuned" to come out that way, and making analogies to god and the universe/scientists and experiments. There's no need.

 

[mc4]

how would you distinguish big changes from small changes? there isn't a clear distinction between micro and macro evolution. they are all just changes in species. and if you don't accept that answer, lots of small changes is the same as a big change. so if you accept microevolution, you should accept macroevolution.


einstein didn't blindly latch on to relativity without reason. he had observations that led to it, and if he found an inconsistency, he would've (probably) rejected it.

but he did believe that the universe is static, and that ended up being the biggest mistake he's ever made.


any "scientist" who believes in something unfalsifiable is not a scientist. faith and religion goes against everything science stands for


no, i think you are the one that needs to check your terms. faith is belief without evidence. there is no room for that in science. EVERYTHING is subject to evidence. the scientist may have faith in the success of his hypothesis, but if he lets that interfere with his work, it isn't science.


the buoyancy under water doesn't decrease the gravitational pull on an object, it only counters it. and since gravity is dependent on the mass and distance, it's not going to be a constant everywhere on earth. just close to a constant.


the people who

you still haven't given me any articles showing me biologists who don't believe in evolution. i bet it's because they're all christian.


what part of INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS UNFALSIFIABLE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS don't you understand?

and you just contradicted yourself. "intelligent design isn't a science"


anybody who understands the basics of evolution and chooses to go with intelligent design isn't a scientist. i got that from logic, not polls.[/QUOTE]

Dictionary.com-2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

he had reason to believe it initially, but didn't have evidence to prove it initially, so then it required faith by the above definition.

You are correct, he did believe in a static universe, he also had faith in that, but it was wrong.

read the definition, faith doesn't go against science. If something isn't proven undeniably and people still put trust in it and believe it it requires faith by the above definition.

Once again, no i don't have to check the definition, but you should.

Sorry if when i mentioned the buoyancy of water i didn't use my words right. My point was that gravity is constant, but drag forces will slow things down, but it doesn't change the fact that gravity is constant. it just changes how fast things travel under the influence of drag forces. When i said the first statement mimicing your light speed statement, my point was that you can create stipulation to anything to claim that it might not be as consistent as we think. and you yourself said that relativity proves light speed as constant which contradicted yours statement that it could be different under unknown circumstances.

i don't have to give you any names, that yahoo questionaire thingy proved there are biologists who don't believe in evo even if it is a large minority.

intelligent design can't be a part of a hypothesis you are right. i never said it was, i even said you can't study intelligent design when you kept talking about scientist who do study intelligent design, it isn't possible. however if by studying the physical universe someone comes to the conclusion that there is intelligent design is different. The person isn't studying intelligent design as a science, they merely come to it as a conclusion.

The fact that you doubt the veracity of several polls from the National Acadamy of Sciences furthers our point that you're a moron and have no idea what you're talking about. You're trying to make it seem like there's a controversy among scientists when in reality there is none.

There are plenty of scientific fields that aren't biology that strongly back evolution.

I'm not even going to touch your little nitpicking about micro and macro, since, once again, it's obvious you have no idea how evolution actually works. When you're done nosing around Answers in Genitals for arguments, come and tell me.

What are you serious, i saw a movie that proves there is a controversy among scientists, as soon as i go find it again best believe i'll tell you what it is. It has ben stein as a narrator and talks about how hundreds, literally hundreds of scientists have been blackballed for believing in creation.

like what, name em please. And you are forgetting that not all scientists will agree despite how many fields there may be that can support it as a theory, but go ahead, name em...

I had a biology teacher who even went as far as distinguishing the two and he believed in evolution. I've never seen a species change into another one, have you? has anyone in recorded history? Has anyone seen a species adapt to its environment to become more suitable and have a better chance at survival? has anyone in history? yes, and that is the difference.

you guys say science is about proof, and yes it is. so where is the physical, observed proof of macro, you study evolution and still don't know what you're talking about, yes there is a difference between micro and macro. All you have is evolution for what you believe and nothing else, i used physics, biology, and chemistry throughout this thread to prove why i don't agree with it.

Again, that's just silly! We have a fosssil record, and undeniable proof for microevolution, along with logic!


Earlier, you spoke that a large number of scientists opposed evolution. I was just trying to show it was smaller than you thought.


Something with no proof. Okay.



Ah, but the people who do agree study just as much(maybe even more), and so the evidence gathers a larger group, right? Of course.

Let's not bother with the major contradictions found in this sentence(s).

No, a real biologist is one with an actual (good) background in biology. And more than 80% of them feel that evolution is true.

Then there's no way to get through to you with logic and evidence/proof/facts/reality, eh?

Also, the experiment "control" thing. The more general the subject, the less controls you have, right? The more specific, the more limits you put. That's the generality. You are trying to recreate a specific portion, and not the entire set of everything, itself. See my drift? If you examine a packing pellet with a strange shape and try to replicate it, you are going to have to place lots of controls on packaging and factory work and stuff like that. If you want to replicate a general idea, then you place less controls. No need to say that the pellet was "fine-tuned" to come out that way, and making analogies to god and the universe/scientists and experiments. There's no need.

your fossil record is based on radio carbon 14 for its dating. Guess what, it isn't always accurate, also human error is taken into account because you can identify something and still be wrong about what it is. you're looking at bones.. not the living animals. for example, crypto zoology revolves around physical proof that things like bigfoot exist, many people will say they saw big foot and were sure about it, only later to find out it was a bear or a gorilla. What's my point? people can get what they think they see wrong.

hey well i guess it is smaller than i think, but my whole point was that there are "scientists" that don't agree. your friend says real scientists always agree.

I don't care about the numbers of how many people agree with something, doesn't prove it as right.

the difference between the pellet and life is what you sayed, the pellet is fine tuned, so when recreating it the person no doubt represents the one who finetuned it. you can't compare that to random life, why, because you claim it wasn't finetuned. big difference in the two situations.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

What are you serious, i saw a movie that proves there is a controversy among scientists, as soon as i go find it again best believe i'll tell you what it is. It has ben stein as a narrator and talks about how hundreds, literally hundreds of scientists have been blackballed for believing in creation.

One movie=inalienable proof of controversy? That's a pretty flimsy foundation for a counter-argument. Also, not all scientists are blacklisted because they believe in Creationism. If any of those scientists are blacklisted for that sort of thing, it's probably because they're unflappable fundamentalists sanctioned by the Church. Scientists disagree vociferously all the time, but rarely are people outright ostracized for things like that.

Smooth Criminal

 

[arrowhead]

Dictionary.com-2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

he had reason to believe it initially, but didn't have evidence to prove it initially, so then it required faith by the above definition.

You are correct, he did believe in a static universe, he also had faith in that, but it was wrong.

read the definition, faith doesn't go against science. If something isn't proven undeniably and people still put trust in it and believe it it requires faith by the above definition.

Once again, no i don't have to check the definition, but you should.

holy **** did you even read my post? a scientist having faith in something does not mean science includes faith. if we go by your logic, science also doesn't like bush, rock climbs, and watches TV. you have no idea what science is, so stop pretending that you do

Sorry if when i mentioned the buoyancy of water i didn't use my words right. My point was that gravity is constant, but drag forces will slow things down, but it doesn't change the fact that gravity is constant. it just changes how fast things travel under the influence of drag forces. When i said the first statement mimicing your light speed statement, my point was that you can create stipulation to anything to claim that it might not be as consistent as we think. and you yourself said that relativity proves light speed as constant which contradicted yours statement that it could be different under unknown circumstances.

gravity is not constant. it is dependent on distance and mass.

i never said relativity proves the speed of light to be a constant. i said it's never been observed to be anything other than ~300km/sec. that in NO WAY means that the speed of light will ALWAYS be ~300km/sec

i don't have to give you any names, that yahoo questionaire thingy proved there are biologists who don't believe in evo even if it is a large minority.

lol large minority? i've said this before: christian scientists are not scientists.

intelligent design can't be a part of a hypothesis you are right. i never said it was, i even said you can't study intelligent design when you kept talking about scientist who do study intelligent design, it isn't possible. however if by studying the physical universe someone comes to the conclusion that there is intelligent design is different. The person isn't studying intelligent design as a science, they merely come to it as a conclusion.

and coming to that conclusion is obviously unscientific.

 

[RDK]

One movie=inalienable proof of controversy? That's a pretty flimsy foundation for a counter-argument. Also, not all scientists are blacklisted because they believe in Creationism. If any of those scientists are blacklisted for that sort of thing, it's probably because they're unflappable fundamentalists sanctioned by the Church. Scientists disagree vociferously all the time, but rarely are people outright ostracized for things like that.

Smooth Criminal

No, he's talking about that ridiculous pseudo-documentary by Ben Stein that compares the scientific institution and evolutionists to Hitler. I saw it.

I think that's all that needs to be said about that. There's really no point in continuing this debate.

 

[Aesir]

Mc4 it's great that you want to challenge evolution however you're challenging it with a hypothesis that holds no water. (yes I'm calling it a hypothesis and not a theory.)


I think you should look at this video:

The Collapse of Intelligent Design

Also Ben Stein isn't a scientist so don't take what he says with anything more than a grain of salt.

 

[BFDD]

Wait...after reading your garbage I suddenly came to a realization. You are arguing that evolution is wrong because it hasn't been proven to be 100% correct, but you do believe intelligent design which has absolutely no evidence at all.

Just to make things clear. Evolution lots of evidence(micro and macro, though one has less than the other). Intelligent design has no evidence. Not really a hard choice.

A quick search on google for scientific websites about evolution will show you that evolution is really well thought out tested. All the anti-evolution stuff you have been pulling from fake science websites is crap. It is all based on a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Its complicated and very difficult to fully understand, which makes it easy for them to mislead uninformed people.

Study evolution first. Actually learn what it really is all about from a person who has actually studied evolution. Then you can try to challenge it. If you are going to challenge a widely accepted theory that is based on years of testing and physical evidence, you have to actually understand it or you are going to come off like an ignorant moron .

 

[-Mars-]

Here's how I look at it.

I look at the human body, the different species of animals, the universe and I realize how complex they all are.

Then I think to myself "so all of this just happened to fall perfectly into place" and I realize how silly that sounds.

Just think of where the Earth is located. A few more miles in either direction and we would freeze or burn to death. Not to mention that the human race just happened to end up on the only known planet with oxygen.........I don't see how you couldn't believe that someone put this together.

 

[BFDD]

So the widely accepted and tested belief seems silly to you. Don't you think if it was such a terrible idea someone would have caught it by now. Scientists have been testing this for as long as they were able.

Again the probability of a planet being able to sustain life is really low, but the universe is massive. Take that probability and try it a nearly infinite amount of times and it become very likely. The probability of winning the lottery is extremely low but people have won it.

God is more complex than humans, animals, and the earth combined. You think it makes more sense for a god to randomly appear than for the earth to slowly increase in complexity of species from very basic parts. God is infinitely powerful which makes him infinitely improbable. It is more likely for a person to randomly appear fully clothed with a laptop, than for god to randomly appear.

Not sure why I bother to post though. I can tell from your post that you don't know much of anything about how evolution works.

 

[-Mars-]

So the widely accepted and tested belief seems silly to you. Don't you think if it was such a terrible idea someone would have caught it by now. Scientists have been testing this for as long as they were able.

Again the probability of a planet being able to sustain life is really low, but the universe is massive. Take that probability and try it a nearly infinite amount of times and it become very likely. The probability of winning the lottery is extremely low but people have won it.

God is more complex than humans, animals, and the earth combined. You think it makes more sense for a god to randomly appear than for the earth to slowly increase in complexity of species from very basic parts. God is infinitely powerful which makes him infinitely improbable. It is more likely for a person to randomly appear fully clothed with a laptop, than for god to randomly appear.

Not sure why I bother to post though. I can tell from your post that you don't know much of anything about how evolution works.

They haven't been "testing" anything. They've merely been theorizing for all of these years and it has become the widely accepted science. People have been opposing it for as long as the theory of evolution has existed, but they're merely written off as religious radicals.

Who claimed God randomly appeared? If we're going to imagine for a second that we both believe in God, we know that God has always existed. Yes, I do believe Intelligent Design makes more sense than "basic parts" turning into complex organisms.

Not sure why I bother to post though. I can tell from your post that you don't know much of anything about how creation works.

 

[AltF4]

Not sure why I bother to post though. I can tell from your post that you don't know much of anything about how creation works.

Oooh! And you DO know how creation works? Please explain it to me. I would much like to hear how creation works. Especially the parts where causality is violated, or why god does not also require creation himself?


But rather, I think it is you who does not understand evolution, early universe physics, nor any of the real experiments that have been done to test hypotheses about it. I suppose you know what the universal background radiation is and implies?

 

[Ryusuta]

I still love that whole "evolution is only a theory" arguments. People really don't seem to understand the significant difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

A theory is a claim that is supported by ALL THE AVAILABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE, yet can't be tested in a laboratory environment.

Evolution is only a theory in name because it can't be directly tested. It's not a hypothesis, any more than the Theory of Relativity is one.

It's absolutely ludicrous in this day and age to think that creationism is a less flawed concept than evolution. It absolutely, positively makes no sense to do so.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm pretty sure any current explanation of the universe violates causality, Alt.

 

[AltF4]

Not Hawking's! It is a fully consistent (meaning without contradiction) account of the (non) creation of the universe. It now needs only empirical evidence to support it versus other possible theories. People are already underway on that, too.

So it may be a bit hasty to say "This is how it happened". And I attempt greatly to avoid doing so. But it's an amazing idea, and if it isn't fully correct in it's entirety, it's quite likely that many ideas within it are.

 

[RDK]

I'm pretty sure any current explanation of the universe violates causality, Alt.

The point is that some violate it more than others.

Selective reasoning anyone?

 

[AltF4]

Ehh... don't know if that's a good way to put it, RDK. Any contradiction is one too many. If your explanation has even the smallest inconsistency, then it's wrong. There aren't degrees or levels.

Though, from the standpoint of "comprehensibility" or "closeness to the real answer" then maybe I could see that being relevant.

 

[Ryusuta]

I think he's referencing Occam's Razor, though I can't say for certain.

 

[Deleted member]

Zeno of Elea proposed several consistent arguments that as we know are now called paradoxes (re: paradox of midpoints / infinity). Hawking's account is paradoxical.

 

[RDK]

Zeno of Elea proposed several consistent arguments that as we know are now called paradoxes (re: paradox of midpoints / infinity). Hawking's account is paradoxical.

Not really. Check your premises.

]Though, from the standpoint of "comprehensibility" or "closeness to the real answer" then maybe I could see that being relevant.

That's more like what I was driving at.

 

[BFDD]

We don't know that god always existed. We don't know if god exists. We know absolutely nothing about god other than what other people claim without offering any sort of evidence. I think that is silly to believe in that.

Creation: God made everything.
Intelligent design: God made everything, but also added the ability to adapt to a changing environment.

That's my understanding of creation and intelligent design. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[AltF4]

Zeno of Elea proposed several consistent arguments that as we know are now called paradoxes (re: paradox of midpoints / infinity). Hawking's account is paradoxical.

No, Zeno never made any paradoxes. He came up with something he thought was a paradox, but wasn't. Zeno lived before the time of calculus, and was thus unable to understand why his paradoxes, weren't. His arguments were not consistent, either.

But in what way is the No Boundary proposal by Hawking "paradoxical"? It is consistent. That means there are no contradictions. It violates no logical nor physical laws.

 

[Deleted member]

I can't believe we have to define what a paradox is now. Ultimately, Zeno set forth a consistent argument (the conclusion flows directly from the sound premises) that contradicts basic common sense. With his argument of midpoints, you would be unable to leave your room. It's a paradox, there is no debate there.

 

[AltF4]

Lol, I am very well familiar with Zeno's "paradoxes". They are not consistent. The premises are false. He implicitly assumes that ALL infinite series sum to infinity. Which is false. But this was not known until Isaac Newton and calculus. Which is why it baffled people for so long.

EDIT: Just look at the wikipedia page for Zeno's paradoxes:

Mathematicians claim to have done away with Zeno's paradoxes with rigorous analysis of the units of distance and time involved in the problem, and the invention of the calculus and methods of handling infinite sequences by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in the 17th century, and then again when certain problems with their methods were resolved by the reformulation of the calculus and infinite series methods in the 19th century.[citation needed]. The paradoxes certainly pose no problems in engineering either, as the practical questions as to where and when events such as Achilles passing the Tortoise are satisfactorily handled by unit analysis and calculus.

However, some philosophers insist that the deeper metaphysical questions, as raised by Zeno's paradoxes, are not addressed by the calculus. That is, while calculus tells us where and when Achilles will overtake the Tortoise, philosophers do not see how calculus takes anything away from Zeno's reasoning that concludes that this event cannot happen in the first place [15].

Which only confirms two of my assertions:

1) That Zeno's paradoxes aren't of any concern.
2) That nobody likes philosophers.



And if your definition of "paradox" is simply "defying common sense". Then pretty much everything in science is a paradox. Otherwise we wouldn't need to study any of it. It would all be common sense. This is in fact how the word is commonly used, but isn't a particularly useful definition.

In scientific terms, a paradox is just something which leads to a contradiction. There aren't any read paradoxes in science, though. When someone "finds" one, it merely is demonstrative that a false assumption is being made somewhere in the underlying theory.


Anyway.


You failed to answer my real question: What is so paradoxical about Hawking's Theory? Or is it just "defying common sense"? In which case, there isn't any REAL argument against it.

EDIT2: Except for a lack of empirical evidence, which is valid. People are still underway on that.

 

[Mewter]

you still haven't given me any articles showing me biologists who don't believe in evolution. i bet it's because they're all christian.

We just did.

he had reason to believe it initially, but didn't have evidence to prove it initially, so then it required faith by the above definition.

But it was not a theory yet, and saying this is like saying science is all faith because of the beginning desirables of an experiment, and not the results.

read the definition, faith doesn't go against science. If something isn't proven undeniably and people still put trust in it and believe it it requires faith by the above definition.

Evolution has been proven undeniably. Why don't you want to believe it, anyways? What do you have against science?

i don't have to give you any names, that yahoo questionaire thingy proved there are biologists who don't believe in evo even if it is a large minority.

Haha. Large minority.

intelligent design can't be a part of a hypothesis you are right. i never said it was, i even said you can't study intelligent design when you kept talking about scientist who do study intelligent design, it isn't possible. however if by studying the physical universe someone comes to the conclusion that there is intelligent design is different. The person isn't studying intelligent design as a science, they merely come to it as a conclusion.

This contradicts with the other statement, and is not self-consistent. Intelligent design is complete, utter, incomprehensible lie. It works only when you ignore the studied facts.

By marsulas
Just think of where the Earth is located. A few more miles in either direction and we would freeze or burn to death. Not to mention that the human race just happened to end up on the only known planet with oxygen.........I don't see how you couldn't believe that someone put this together.

That "few more miles" is still large.
We also evolved for this temperature. Also.... we're here, so of course we are here! Saying that we got lucky and "ended up" on a planet is ignorant and shows a lack of any knowledge of biology.

like what, name em please. And you are forgetting that not all scientists will agree despite how many fields there may be that can support it as a theory, but go ahead, name em...

Physics, to an extent, biology(really), archaeology...
Nope. Can't really think of any.

I had a biology teacher who even went as far as distinguishing the two and he believed in evolution. I've never seen a species change into another one, have you? has anyone in recorded history? Has anyone seen a species adapt to its environment to become more suitable and have a better chance at survival? has anyone in history? yes, and that is the difference.

Wow. A contradiction. At least try to explain a bit more, please, so it won't seem so much like one. I may be missing something.

you guys say science is about proof, and yes it is. so where is the physical, observed proof of macro, you study evolution and still don't know what you're talking about, yes there is a difference between micro and macro. All you have is evolution for what you believe and nothing else, i used physics, biology, and chemistry throughout this thread to prove why i don't agree with it.

You never proved anything. We used logic and reason to completely stomp, pound, and obliterate all of your "physics, biology, and chemistry".
Using these, in the first place, is how you come to our conclusion, anyways. Come on. Don't be a straw man.

your fossil record is based on radio carbon 14 for its dating. Guess what, it isn't always accurate, also human error is taken into account because you can identify something and still be wrong about what it is. you're looking at bones.. not the living animals. for example, crypto zoology revolves around physical proof that things like bigfoot exist, many people will say they saw big foot and were sure about it, only later to find out it was a bear or a gorilla. What's my point? people can get what they think they see wrong.

I could easily say the same of other sciences, and that they aren't right at all!

hey well i guess it is smaller than i think, but my whole point was that there are "scientists" that don't agree. your friend says real scientists always agree.

I don't care about the numbers of how many people agree with something, doesn't prove it as right.

the difference between the pellet and life is what you sayed, the pellet is fine tuned, so when recreating it the person no doubt represents the one who finetuned it. you can't compare that to random life, why, because you claim it wasn't finetuned. big difference in the two situations.

They haven't been "testing" anything. They've merely been theorizing for all of these years and it has become the widely accepted science. People have been opposing it for as long as the theory of evolution has existed, but they're merely written off as religious radicals.

Pfft. Because they ARE.

Who claimed God randomly appeared? If we're going to imagine for a second that we both believe in God, we know that God has always existed. Yes, I do believe Intelligent Design makes more sense than "basic parts" turning into complex organisms.

Yes, life magically appearing out of thin air makes tons of sense. Basic buildup is stupid because I don't believe it, and my beliefs(get ready).... CAN SHAPE THE UNIVERSE! That, and Alt 4 Warrior is an idiot(an educated idiot).
How does this work, exactly?

Not sure why I bother to post though. I can tell from your post that you don't know much of anything about how creation works.

How does creation work? Tell me. I would love to hear it. I predict catastrophe, though.

Evolution makes all the sense in the world, given all the factual evidence. Face it. It's people like you, marsulas and mc4, who have too closed a mind to simply accept the world as how it is, and there's no way to change it, now. Why would you beleive faith, and not evidence? Why would you start at at a conclusion, and build down? Why would you butcher science, and yet claim that a totally full-blown nonsensical "intelligent design" with no supportive data is the answer? Fact: Micro evolution happens. Fact: The fossil record is consistent. Fact: Carbon dating is reliable enough to trust.

 

[Deleted member]

Of course the paradoxes don't pose any trouble - their only use now is to show how a seemingly sound argument can be false. This is the only reason they're taught anymore. Mathematicians are just too OCD to realize this, so they come up with a pretty lame explanation for Zeno's "crazy!" logic. I stated that they defy common sense because everybody knows the tortoise would never win against Achilles, and I can get from point A to point B without trouble.

Hawking's theory proposes that the universe was not created. For something to be an IS, (the universe is qualitative) it cannot have been that way always. I simply don't understand how he can claim the universe to be eternal. That violates causality directly.

Now, this is all based off my assumption that I know what you're talking about. If you will, don't tell me that I have you all wrong if I'm off by a few minor details.

Edit: What I'm trying to say here is - it's turtles all the way down, baby.

 

[AltF4]

No, no. Don't worry about it. Too many people get worked up when the other side of the debate misunderstand a detail. I try not to.

You see, time in Hawking's theory (at risk of grossly oversimplifying it) extends into the past asymptotically. There is a finite duration to time. It "began" a certain number of billion years ago. Yet it never actually had a "beginning", because it curves exponentially.

It would kind of be like this: Imagine watching a video tape of the universe in reverse from now until the beginning of time. What you would see is that as you got closer and closer to the actual big bang, the slower the tape would run. And it would just keep getting slower and slower,and you would never actually ever see the moment of creation no matter how long you watched.


Causality requires that current states be determined by previous states. In more sciencey terms, for every moment in time, t, there must be a preceding moment, t', which determines it's states. For all moments after the big bang, this is obviously true. But this WOULD be untrue at the actual moment of the big bang. By eliminating this point and saying it never happened eliminates the contradiction.