The Center Stage

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Yeah I've heard about the sundog theory, but that's still controversial too. That doesn't change the fact that a little girl correctly predicted it, the Aurora before the war, communism, and I think there were other things too.

She may have just got lucky. There have been a huge number of people on this planet, someone is going to be right about something in the future. And does that mean that it was actually god's grace or her ability? Again, there may be a method of predicting the future that we haven't discovered yet. The point is, the information on the ground is relatively poor.

Well if there's evidence of supernatural phenomena occuring, it's pretty logical to assume it's supernatural.

It's not as if there's been just one medically or scientifically explicable phenomena, there's been several.

It's not as if the girl at Fatima was the only one to correctly predict occurences through prohecy, several of these have occurred.

I've even had spiritual things happen to me, and I know of others who have experienced it as well. I'm not talking about 'I saw God' stuff, I'm talking about stuff that requires external influences, so it can't be dellusion.

You guys play the argument from ignorance card because it is easy to do, but the reality is after a point it just becomes more logical to accept spiritual phenomena than to deny it.

Well, the thing is you are arguing that we can't explain these phenomena, therefore it must be supernatural. At this point, even though these "miracles" occur, we don't know what caused them. How can you tell that the miracle was god's doing? I don't really think you can.

So because it's not accepted in the scientific community it didn't happen?

No, but the point is, that there are a lot of stories that go around, not all of which are true, UFOs etc. This means that you can't say that X saw this, therefore it must be true! This is because eyewitness evidence is absolute rubbish! Humans lie, get drunk, hallucinate, have poor eyesight, get confused, forget, turn the other way when stuff happens, fabricate memories, etc. The point is, we can't just take any eyewitness accounts as plausible especially if the probability of the event occurring is lower then the probability of the witnesses being wrong, because eyewitness evidence is terrible.

The whole point of spirtual phenomena is that it's not scientifically explainable. Science is related to the observation of natural things, supernatural phenomena are not natural things.

The thing is, people like you say that you'll accept it when there is scientific evidence for it, which means you'll only accept it if there is a natural and physical explanation for it, meaning that you were never open to the possibility of it being supernatural.

The whole idea behind the Miracle of the Sun was that Mother Mary was giving proof of the girl's apparitions. If she were to make something that was scientifically explainable, then no one would believe it was supernatural. Alot of the time, the whole point of the event is to prove there is existence beyond the natural, causing phenomena that could be explained through the natural wouldn't really help that cause.

Or maybe, it was an event that modern science just can explain yet! Or, maybe it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster's work. Or what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, maybe it was Apollo, etc.

See my point, there isn't any direct evidence that it was actually Mother Mary involved. If she really wanted to, couldn't she just give everyone a massive spiritual experience at the same time and leave messages detectable with scientific instruments, that would leave no doubt it was her, instead she goes with strange occurrences on the sidelines, that may or may not have actually happened or perhaps even turn out to be fake! It doesn't really make any sense at all.

Jesus said something along the lines that the word of the Church is the word of God, so Catholics follow this. The reason why there's so much different interpretation is that protestants start trying to interpret it in their own ways.

Several protestant denominations also omit several books from the Bible. For example, from what I understand the Baptist Church believes that only adults should be baptised, yet in one of the books that they omit (the Book of James possibly?) entire families are baptised, including the children.

Protestants themselves have traced back the Catholic Church to the early Church.

Okay so an organisation decides how to interpret the bible? So how do they decide how to do that? And does every Catholic subscribe to this? Because I don't quite think so. It seems to me that every religious person on the planet, even Catholics will have a different version of what they believe to other members of the same faith.

 

[Dre89]

She may have just got lucky. There have been a huge number of people on this planet, someone is going to be right about something in the future. And does that mean that it was actually god's grace or her ability? Again, there may be a method of predicting the future that we haven't discovered yet. The point is, the information on the ground is relatively poor.

She's not the first person to have apparitions of Mother Mary which correctly prohpecise certain events. Considering that there is alot of evidence for the Church besides these miracles, it is pretty logical to assume it actually is Mother Mary.

Well, the thing is you are arguing that we can't explain these phenomena, therefore it must be supernatural. At this point, even though these "miracles" occur, we don't know what caused them. How can you tell that the miracle was god's doing? I don't really think you can.

Scientists are always going to say that. They're always going to say 'we just don't have an explanation yet'. Well when will they accept it as supernatural? at what point will they accept they won't have an explanation for it?

They never will, it doesn't matter how much evidence is thrown in their face, they will never accept it. If several medically explicable occurences, scientifically verified miracles, several correctly fulfilled prophecies, several incorruptible bodies of saints, historical correlaions, plus tons more evidence I can't think of now is not enough evidence, then what is?

No, but the point is, that there are a lot of stories that go around, not all of which are true, UFOs etc. This means that you can't say that X saw this, therefore it must be true! This is because eyewitness evidence is absolute rubbish! Humans lie, get drunk, hallucinate, have poor eyesight, get confused, forget, turn the other way when stuff happens, fabricate memories, etc. The point is, we can't just take any eyewitness accounts as plausible especially if the probability of the event occurring is lower then the probability of the witnesses being wrong, because eyewitness evidence is terrible.

It's fact that the Miracle of the Sun occured. Whether it's a sundog or something supernatural is irrelevant, she correctly predicted it, she also correctly predicted the aurora (although witnesses say it was different to an aurora), and several other phenomena. There have also been several other people who had apparitions of Mary who correctly prophecised future phenomena, these are fact too.

The reality is, if you dismiss all claims as 'eyewitness' dellusion, then you're not aware of all the evidence, because alot of it simply cannot be dismissed on those grounds.

Or maybe, it was an event that modern science just can explain yet! Or, maybe it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster's work. Or what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn, maybe it was Apollo, etc.

See my point, there isn't any direct evidence that it was actually Mother Mary involved. If she really wanted to, couldn't she just give everyone a massive spiritual experience at the same time and leave messages detectable with scientific instruments, that would leave no doubt it was her, instead she goes with strange occurrences on the sidelines, that may or may not have actually happened or perhaps even turn out to be fake! It doesn't really make any sense at all.

But there is so much correlation to the Church. Even certain phenomena which are fact correlate to the Catholic account of how the devil operates.
If all this evidence isn't enough for someone to believe it, then what is?

Okay so an organisation decides how to interpret the bible? So how do they decide how to do that? And does every Catholic subscribe to this? Because I don't quite think so. It seems to me that every religious person on the planet, even Catholics will have a different version of what they believe to other members of the same faith.

No the Bible said that the organisation decides it, because the Church is blessed with the Holy Spirit or something like that. It doesn't matter whether we agree with that or not, anyone who doesn't agree with that simply is not practising the Catholic faith correctly.

Anyway, I feel we've exhausted this topic, we've both made our points clear so I feel it's best we leave it at that.

What I want to know is what I have to do to get in the DH.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

She's not the first person to have apparitions of Mother Mary which correctly prohpecise certain events. Considering that there is alot of evidence for the Church besides these miracles, it is pretty logical to assume it actually is Mother Mary.

Hallucination perhaps? Dreams can predict certain events, that doesn't make them god-given.

Scientists are always going to say that. They're always going to say 'we just don't have an explanation yet'. Well when will they accept it as supernatural? at what point will they accept they won't have an explanation for it?

We are at the moment! We don't have an explanation for some of these phenomena (or do we? I don't really know), but we may in the future or we may never find an explanation. However the fact that we didn't know how something occurred, doesn't mean you can just yell "GODDIDIT!". That is an argument from ignorance and therefore a logical fallacy!

They never will, it doesn't matter how much evidence is thrown in their face, they will never accept it. If several medically explicable occurences, scientifically verified miracles, several correctly fulfilled prophecies, several incorruptible bodies of saints, historical correlaions, plus tons more evidence I can't think of now is not enough evidence, then what is?

Oh, and what about the stuff that they get wrong! People die, because faith-healing fails. There are unfulfilled prophecies, or even the fulfilled prophecies are just very vague so that they'll happen sooner or latter! The incorruptible bodies of saints may not have an explanation, but that doesn't mean that goddidit. In fact there is an explanation, the retarding of decomposition through various processes including saponification.

It's fact that the Miracle of the Sun occured. Whether it's a sundog or something supernatural is irrelevant, she correctly predicted it, she also correctly predicted the aurora (although witnesses say it was different to an aurora), and several other phenomena. There have also been several other people who had apparitions of Mary who correctly prophecised future phenomena, these are fact too.

Oh really? Just because you can predict the future to a certain extent, doesn't mean that goddidit. Seriously, weird stuff happens, and you don't need to attribute everything to him.

The reality is, if you dismiss all claims as 'eyewitness' dellusion, then you're not aware of all the evidence, because alot of it simply cannot be dismissed on those grounds.

Okay, then even if it is not the case that all the claims are eyewitness claims, it still doesn't change the nature of the argument. You don't actually know that god is involved, your just guessing!

But there is so much correlation to the Church. Even certain phenomena which are fact correlate to the Catholic account of how the devil operates.
If all this evidence isn't enough for someone to believe it, then what is?

An upbringing of indoctrination! Seriously, most people adopt the religion of their parents. It's just the way it is.

No the Bible said that the organisation decides it, because the Church is blessed with the Holy Spirit or something like that. It doesn't matter whether we agree with that or not, anyone who doesn't agree with that simply is not practising the Catholic faith correctly.

Okay, then... I guess that fits in with your view!

Anyway, I feel we've exhausted this topic, we've both made our points clear so I feel it's best we leave it at that.

That's okay with me!

 

[Dre89]

We are at the moment! We don't have an explanation for some of these phenomena (or do we? I don't really know), but we may in the future or we may never find an explanation. However the fact that we didn't know how something occurred, doesn't mean you can just yell "GODDIDIT!". That is an argument from ignorance and therefore a logical fallacy!

Given all the evidence we have that points towards the Church, when is it no longer an argument from ignorance to accept it?

Oh, and what about the stuff that they get wrong! People die, because faith-healing fails. There are unfulfilled prophecies, or even the fulfilled prophecies are just very vague so that they'll happen sooner or latter! The incorruptible bodies of saints may not have an explanation, but that doesn't mean that goddidit. In fact there is an explanation, the retarding of decomposition through various processes including saponification.

That explanation accounts for bodies who have decayed less than expected. The incorruptible bodies have next to no decay, and also omit a pleasant smell.

Okay, then even if it is not the case that all the claims are eyewitness claims, it still doesn't change the nature of the argument. You don't actually know that god is involved, your just guessing!

So if supernatural phenomena that correlates to the Catholic Church does not mean God is involved, then when can we know God is involved?

An upbringing of indoctrination! Seriously, most people adopt the religion of their parents. It's just the way it is.

What does this have to do with anything? Given the fact you think the only reason people are religious is because of their upbrining, I assuming you're not really familiar with any of the alleged evidence, historical correlations or theological writings.

You talk in a light-hearted manner, yet you're still avoiding the question I'm asking you.

Even after all the evidence that points towards the Church, if you're still going to say 'just because science hasn't found an explanation...' then where does that stop?

When does it no longer become an argument of ignorance to accept it?

What has to happen for you to actually believe it?

See, the fact you always hide behind the fact that science could possibly have an explanation for it in the future means you'll only accept it if science does have an explanation for it, which means you'll only acecpt it if there's a natural or physical explanation for it, meaning you were never open to the possibiltiy of it being supernatural in the first place.

Please answer these questions for me, if you just avoid them, or try answer them light-heartedly, then I'll know you don't really have a proper answer to them.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Given all the evidence we have that points towards the Church, when is it no longer an argument from ignorance to accept it?

When there is hard evidence of a causal connection between the event and god.

That explanation accounts for bodies who have decayed less than expected. The incorruptible bodies have next to no decay, and also omit a pleasant smell.

Actually, that has never been verified, and the bodies have obviously decayed, it's just that they didn't do it very much at all. Take this picture for example, this is an image of Saint Virginia who's supposed to be incorrupt.

It's obvious that she has decayed, about to the extent you'd find from someone who's mummified. They were probably buried in cool and dry ground and decomposition probably has been slowed through various processes enough for the body to retain it's composure. Then, when she was found to be incorrupt, she's probably preserved to some extent, by putting her in a dry glass box.

This sort of thing has happened quite naturally with things like bog-bodies and mummification. Who's to say that it can't happen in normalish soil.

So if supernatural phenomena that correlates to the Catholic Church does not mean God is involved, then when can we know God is involved?

You'll only know if there is hard evidence of god actually doing the work, as of yet, there isn't.

What does this have to do with anything? Given the fact you think the only reason people are religious is because of their upbrining, I assuming you're not really familiar with any of the alleged evidence, historical correlations or theological writings.

I'm not saying the only reason, but certainly a major reason. Children are open to a extremely large amount of suggestion when they're young, especially from their parents or carers.

You talk in a light-hearted manner, yet you're still avoiding the question I'm asking you.

Even after all the evidence that points towards the Church, if you're still going to say 'just because science hasn't found an explanation...' then where does that stop?

Does the evidence point to the church? Certainly most of the supposed miracles have a scientific explanation, and those that don't could be hoaxes or just currently unexplainable. Where does it stop? When there is direct evidence that God did it.

When does it no longer become an argument of ignorance to accept it?

Like I said, "When there is direct evidence that God did it."

What has to happen for you to actually believe it?

"When there is direct evidence that God did it."

See, the fact you always hide behind the fact that science could possibly have an explanation for it in the future means you'll only accept it if science does have an explanation for it, which means you'll only acecpt it if there's a natural or physical explanation for it, meaning you were never open to the possibiltiy of it being supernatural in the first place.

I'm open to the possibility of it being supernatural, but there isn't any evidence of it actually being supernatural. It's merely strange things occurring that can be explained away, at least most of the time, if not, they're generally hoaxes.

And as of miracles go, they're pretty poor, I mean a couple of people bleeding, that's just poor. Why couldn't the all powerful guy do something that is genuinely amazing, like creating a new continent in the Pacific or something (possibly shaped like Jesus or something), or stabilising the earth's climate, something genuinely cool. Why isn't that happening, that's what I'd expect from an all-powerful being? I'd actually believe that that god would exist if that happened.

Please answer these questions for me, if you just avoid them, or try answer them light-heartedly, then I'll know you don't really have a proper answer to them.

Okay, I think I've done that.

 

[Dre89]

When there is hard evidence of a causal connection between the event and god.

Well then what constitues evidence of a causal connection between the event and God?

I mean I want you to literally give me an example of something you'd believe, and explain why it's anymore different to every other peice of evidence you've discarded.

Actually, that has never been verified, and the bodies have obviously decayed, it's just that they didn't do it very much at all. Take this picture for example, this is an image of Saint Virginia who's supposed to be incorrupt.

It's obvious that she has decayed, about to the extent you'd find from someone who's mummified. They were probably buried in cool and dry ground and decomposition probably has been slowed through various processes enough for the body to retain it's composure. Then, when she was found to be incorrupt, she's probably preserved to some extent, by putting her in a dry glass box.

This sort of thing has happened quite naturally with things like bog-bodies and mummification. Who's to say that it can't happen in normalish soil.

I'll agree with you on that one, but I think there are others that are supposed to be better. To be honest, I'm not totally convinced about the incorruptibles either, I just threw it in there because the Church deemed it miraculous, and because I'm debating on the side of the Church, I thought it would make sense to do so.. Things such as Marian apparaitions, particularly those at Fatima and Lourdes I fully advocate though.

I'm not saying the only reason, but certainly a major reason. Children are open to a extremely large amount of suggestion when they're young, especially from their parents or carers.

But there are also people who are atheists for stupid reasons. Having a bad premise for a conclusion doesn't make the conclusion bad, they just have the wrong premise.

Does the evidence point to the church? Certainly most of the supposed miracles have a scientific explanation, and those that don't could be hoaxes or just currently unexplainable.

There isn't any scientific explanation for how several unrelated people had apparitions of the same lady, who happened to be depicted in the Bible, and then all correctly prophecised multiple one-in-a-million occurences. There also isn't any scientific explanation for the experiences I've had myself, or those others have told me of.

Like I said, "When there is direct evidence that God did it."

So if none of this is direct evidence, what is?

Explain to me what actually has to happen for you to consider it direct evidence.

I'm open to the possibility of it being supernatural, but there isn't any evidence of it actually being supernatural. It's merely strange things occurring that can be explained away, at least most of the time, if not, they're generally hoaxes.

Explain the marian apparitions, and how the Catholic concept of how the devil operates has been evident in various occurences eg. exorcisms, people claiming that God is making them write things (with their eyes closed in different handwriting, neevr taking their hand off the page) etc.

Also explain why at the Miracle of the Sun it rained until the afternoon, but then once everyone saw the mriacle, their clothes immediately dried.

And as of miracles go, they're pretty poor, I mean a couple of people bleeding, that's just poor. Why couldn't the all powerful guy do something that is genuinely amazing, like creating a new continent in the Pacific or something (possibly shaped like Jesus or something), or stabilising the earth's climate, something genuinely cool. Why isn't that happening, that's what I'd expect from an all-powerful being? I'd actually believe that that god would exist if that happened.

Why would that matter? You'll still just say 'just because science doesn't have an explanation for it....' then play the argument of ignorance card. Also, as I mentioned before, at the Miracle of the Sun, he made it rain til afternoon then when the sun thing happened everyone's clothes suddenly dried. Surely that must be supernatural, for if it was merely a sundog, and the fact that the girl somehow coincidently guessed a one-in-a-billion event (along with several others, the same as other girls who claimed to have apparitions of the exact same woman), there would be no reason as to why nature would dry their clothes instantly

Okay, I think I've done that.

No you haven't, you've just said 'when there is direct evidence', but you haven't actually told me what this direct evidence actually would be. This is what I'm curious to know.

See, the burden of proof is now on you. I claimed that supernatural phenomena existed, so the burden of proof was on me. I presented my case, yet you dismissed it by claiming that there was no direct evidence to God, and that science is yet to explain it, so to link it with God is ignorant.

In doing so, you've now classed unexplainable phenomena into two categories-

That which science currently cannot explain, but is does not have direct links to God, therefore it is an argument from ignorance to assume it does.

And

That which has direct evidence of God's participation.

Considering that several unrelated people having apparitions of the same significant biblical figure, then all corretcly predicting multiple one-in-a-million occurences only counts as the first, the burden of proof is on you to explain what the distinction between the two is.

You can't hide behind saying 'there has to be direct evidence of God's participation', you actually have to say what this direct evidence is, or would be, and how it is distinguished from the 'just because science hasn't found an explanation...' category.

 

[Sucumbio]

"Hey, Vincent, don't you see? That **** don't matter. You're judging this **** the wrong way. I mean, it could be that God stopped the bullets, or He changed Coke to Pepsi, He found my ****ing car keys. You don't judge **** like this based on merit. Now, whether or not what we experienced was an 'according to Hoyle' miracle is insignificant. What is significant is that I felt the touch of God. God got involved."

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dre, I see where you're coming from. As a religious person, you believe that such phenomena occur. And there's nothing wrong with that. You can believe whatever you want. However, this is not something you're going to be able to convince non-believers of. There's no real evidence of these phenomena, other than anecdotal accounts. Unless I actually have an epiphany of this kind, I'm never going to believe these apparitions occur. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because I honestly don't know whether these occur or not (I have my doubts, but I don't know). But at the same time, you're never going to convince me that what you're saying is the truth, even if you believe it to be.

 

[Dre89]

Dre, I see where you're coming from. As a religious person, you believe that such phenomena occur. And there's nothing wrong with that. You can believe whatever you want. However, this is not something you're going to be able to convince non-believers of. There's no real evidence of these phenomena, other than anecdotal accounts. Unless I actually have an epiphany of this kind, I'm never going to believe these apparitions occur. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because I honestly don't know whether these occur or not (I have my doubts, but I don't know). But at the same time, you're never going to convince me that what you're saying is the truth, even if you believe it to be.

I'm not religious.

But Bob completely dismissed all the evidence I put forth as just not having a current scientific explanation, and to believe they were supernatural was ignorant. However, he failed to explain what constitutes significant evidence of God's involvement.

The point is though, depending of the strength of the evidence provided, there comes a point where it just becomes more logical to believe that it is in fact supernatural.

You can't just hide behind 'science just doesn't have an explanation for it now' forever, because that means you'll only ever accept it if it has a naturalistic explanation, meaning you were never open to the possibility of it being supernatural.

If I made a list of all the personal experiences I had, plus the one's others had too, combined with the fulfilled prophecies from the marian apparitions (which we know happened because the prophecies were actually fulfilled), you would have to refute over twenty different phenomena, all of which would require a different explanation, and to a neutral it would become evident you're going to drastic measures to retain your argument when in reality it would be more logical to accept the supernatural.

These just aren't "I saw God", I can understand that could very well be dellusion. The ones I'm referring to require external influences, therefore we know it couldn't be mere mental dellusion.

What I don't like about most atheists is that they sit back in their chair and so 'well there's no evidence of God's existence' (as if for some reason the burden of proof is on theists/deists), when they haven't done any investigation to actually try find evidence.

Most of you didn't even know of the phenomena I was talking about, so of course you're going to say there's no proof.

My belief in the supernatural comes from logic, not some form of blind faith, I only started believing in it after I analysed the evidence, so it wasn't as if i was coming from massive religious assumptions first.

Ultimately, I'm arguing there is sufficient evidence to logically believe it. I'm saying that if you look at all the evidence, it becomes more logical to believe it than to not.

I still need someone to explain to me the difference between 'science just doesn't have an explanation yet' and 'direct evidence of God's involvement'.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Well then what constitues evidence of a causal connection between the event and God?

I mean I want you to literally give me an example of something you'd believe, and explain why it's anymore different to every other peice of evidence you've discarded.

Yeah, maybe something absolutely amazing that wouldn't be just an eyewitness claim. Almost all of the "miracles" you claim to be miracles currently have a patchy scientific explanation. Granted, it is patchy, it's incomplete, but it's still a scientific explanation. I think currently the Miracle of the Sun is your best shot, but it's still not very good. The eyewitness reports are contradictory, and there are a number of hypotheses into how the event could have happened.

As for those apparitions, there's this thing called a hoax, or a hallucination. Those spontaneous healings weren't really very good as far as healings go. They're incomplete and can be explained by spontaneous remission of certain diseases. These things are rare, yes, but they can happen- the human body is nothing short of amazing. And just because someone can predict the future with great accuracy, doesn't mean that Jesus was involved.

I'll agree with you on that one, but I think there are others that are supposed to be better. To be honest, I'm not totally convinced about the incorruptibles either, I just threw it in there because the Church deemed it miraculous, and because I'm debating on the side of the Church, I thought it would make sense to do so.. Things such as Marian apparaitions, particularly those at Fatima and Lourdes I fully advocate though.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there because the evidence is just so poor...

But there are also people who are atheists for stupid reasons. Having a bad premise for a conclusion doesn't make the conclusion bad, they just have the wrong premise.

Yeah, okay, but the point was, that most people don't believe in Catholicism because of evidence, but because they were brought up to believe that way.

There isn't any scientific explanation for how several unrelated people had apparitions of the same lady, who happened to be depicted in the Bible, and then all correctly prophecised multiple one-in-a-million occurences. There also isn't any scientific explanation for the experiences I've had myself, or those others have told me of.

So? If you can't explain something that means that Jesus did it! That's what I'm seeing from your arguments. You're saying that because it's inexplicable, Jesus must have been involved.

Actually, I'm going to argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is involved with this, simply because that's how he conducts himself. All the miracles that are supposed to be signs of other gods are now signs of the FSM. Please, do you see what I'm getting at?

So if none of this is direct evidence, what is?

Explain to me what actually has to happen for you to consider it direct evidence.

Okay, this is just really an example, but of something of this scale. Jesus comes down from Heaven, writes his name in the sky permanently, and then proceeds to create a floating continent in the sky, that is in the shape of a cross. Before this, he should also appear on television to a world audience and tell everyone what he's going to do. That would make me believe in Jesus, because there would be no doubt that any of this happened, and there'd be plenty of evidence that this actually happened. Additionally, there'd be plenty of evidence that it was actually him. He made the continent and wrote his name permanently in the sky etc.

Explain the marian apparitions, and how the Catholic concept of how the devil operates has been evident in various occurences eg. exorcisms, people claiming that God is making them write things (with their eyes closed in different handwriting, neevr taking their hand off the page) etc.

Well I can explain the exorcisms, but I'm not sure about the marian apparitions, I don't really know too much about them. I think that someone else should probably comment on them. With exorcisms, the pre-existing condition, was not possession, but merely mental illness, or lying. The cure can be attributed to the placebo effect, or the power of suggestion.

See this link here: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050830_emilyrose.html

Also explain why at the Miracle of the Sun it rained until the afternoon, but then once everyone saw the mriacle, their clothes immediately dried.

Okay, this is interesting, because not everyone who saw this "miracle" actually reported this to have occurred, and human perception isn't the greatest. We can overlook these details, maybe the people were so enchanted with the sight, that they paid no attention to their clothes, and then found them dry. I don't know. And I don't think anyone really does for sure.

Why would that matter? You'll still just say 'just because science doesn't have an explanation for it....' then play the argument of ignorance card. Also, as I mentioned before, at the Miracle of the Sun, he made it rain til afternoon then when the sun thing happened everyone's clothes suddenly dried. Surely that must be supernatural, for if it was merely a sundog, and the fact that the girl somehow coincidently guessed a one-in-a-billion event (along with several others, the same as other girls who claimed to have apparitions of the exact same woman), there would be no reason as to why nature would dry their clothes instantly.

Now, you have to prove to me that this supposed miracle actually happened the way you say it did. Not everyone actually experienced this, the eyewitness reports are sketchy at best, and they're contradictory. And predicting the future is possible, during dreams and hallucinations premonitions do occur. That doesn't mean that they're divine.

See, the burden of proof is now on you. I claimed that supernatural phenomena existed, so the burden of proof was on me. I presented my case, yet you dismissed it by claiming that there was no direct evidence to God, and that science is yet to explain it, so to link it with God is ignorant.

Actually, all you've really done is just listed supposed "miracles" and not really elaborated on them... I think that the burden of proof is on you, to prove that these miracles actually occurred.

In doing so, you've now classed unexplainable phenomena into two categories-

That which science currently cannot explain, but is does not have direct links to God, therefore it is an argument from ignorance to assume it does.

And

That which has direct evidence of God's participation.

Considering that several unrelated people having apparitions of the same significant biblical figure, then all corretcly predicting multiple one-in-a-million occurences only counts as the first, the burden of proof is on you to explain what the distinction between the two is.

Okay, the first one is the category for just extremely weird happenings. Stuff that just happens, but extremely rarely.

The second one, would be where there would be no doubt in anyone's mind whether God did it. He should leave some mark, like permanently engraved in the sky! Or maybe a floating continent (while he's doing this, he should be talking and generally telling us what to do), that would be direct evidence of God's involvement, especially if it was signed by him! C'mon surely an omnipotent being would be capable of that right?

You can't hide behind saying 'there has to be direct evidence of God's participation', you actually have to say what this direct evidence is, or would be, and how it is distinguished from the 'just because science hasn't found an explanation...' category.

I'm not, I'm making a distinction, drawing a line.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, maybe something absolutely amazing that wouldn't be just an eyewitness claim. Almost all of the "miracles" you claim to be miracles currently have a patchy scientific explanation. Granted, it is patchy, it's incomplete, but it's still a scientific explanation. I think currently the Miracle of the Sun is your best shot, but it's still not very good. The eyewitness reports are contradictory, and there are a number of hypotheses into how the event could have happened.

The thing is, if this was the only case of supernatural phenomena, then yeah I wouldn't be jumping to conclusions, but there are tons.

For example I've had certain occurences happen to me which I obviously know are clearly fact, I only mention the likes of Fatima because they are the most convincing, and there is actually stuff online for people to look up, because most people would just say I'm lieing if I told them my experiences.

As for those apparitions, there's this thing called a hoax, or a hallucination. Those spontaneous healings weren't really very good as far as healings go. They're incomplete and can be explained by spontaneous remission of certain diseases. These things are rare, yes, but they can happen- the human body is nothing short of amazing. And just because someone can predict the future with great accuracy, doesn't mean that Jesus was involved.

What do you mean those healings weren't very good?

Are you aware what constitutes miraculous healing in the Church? For example with spring healings, to be officially counted as miraculous certain facts have to be established-

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

I'm going to have to disagree with you there because the evidence is just so poor...

I'll agree on that too, I just put it in there for the sake of the Church.

Yeah, okay, but the point was, that most people don't believe in Catholicism because of evidence, but because they were brought up to believe that way.

I don't really see what that had to do with anything though.

So? If you can't explain something that means that Jesus did it! That's what I'm seeing from your arguments. You're saying that because it's inexplicable, Jesus must have been involved.

No I'm not. If there's one or two unexplanabale phenomena, I'm not going to attribute to any particular faith. When there over hundreds of these phenomena, which all correlate to one particular faith, I wouldn't say it's illogical to actually attribute them to that faith.

Actually, I'm going to argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is involved with this, simply because that's how he conducts himself. All the miracles that are supposed to be signs of other gods are now signs of the FSM. Please, do you see what I'm getting at?

But the only reason this stuff is attributed to Catholicism is because it correlates to the Church and its teachings. So many things that have been predicted by the Bible and the Church have come true.

Okay, this is just really an example, but of something of this scale. Jesus comes down from Heaven, writes his name in the sky permanently, and then proceeds to create a floating continent in the sky, that is in the shape of a cross. Before this, he should also appear on television to a world audience and tell everyone what he's going to do. That would make me believe in Jesus, because there would be no doubt that any of this happened, and there'd be plenty of evidence that this actually happened. Additionally, there'd be plenty of evidence that it was actually him. He made the continent and wrote his name permanently in the sky etc.

I don't see how this is really any different to what happened in the Bible. Yes, the people who existed when it happened will believe it, but then hundreds or thousands years later it will lose believers. Instead of knowing that the Bible is true because of the cross-continent, scientists will say that cross is only a significant symbol in the Church because it was in the sky in the first place, and that's where the Church got it from. Scientists will also say that instead of the name Jesus being in the clouds because of the Bible, it will be in the Bible because it was already in the clouds. So really, this isn't much different to what happened in the Bible, the shroud of Turin still exists but that's still not strong enough evidence.

You'll also get people who claim it is a mass hallucination. Honestly you'd be amazed some of the things people refuse to believe. One guy, a skeptic, was to see a Catholic healer, convinced it was fake, he then saw this ugly woman be healed of her deformed face, and he just wrote how it was all fake, admitting that he saw it. As a result of things such as this, there will be different accounts of what has happened, making it not really any different to the Miracle of the Sun. Yes the cross-continent and his name will always be up there, but it will be debated why it's up there hundreds or thousands of years later.

And honestly, thousands of years later I wouldn't be surprised if scientists were still saying 'just because science can't explain it at the moment doesn't mean it's God, and to think so is ignorant'.

Well I can explain the exorcisms, but I'm not sure about the marian apparitions, I don't really know too much about them. I think that someone else should probably comment on them. With exorcisms, the pre-existing condition, was not possession, but merely mental illness, or lying. The cure can be attributed to the placebo effect, or the power of suggestion.

I think you give the Church too little credit. You seem to think that the Chruch immediately believes any claim of miraculous curing or demonic possession. Excorcism teams, both Catholic and Protestant, say that most cases they're called to investigate are simply dismissed as mental illness. There have been cases where people have spoken in languages they didn't know etc.

Also, alot of the grounding for belief in demonic possession come from the fact that there are other instances of the devil at work. For example, some people who get into sayonces, or are mentally/emotionally unstable, start to write on papre, except they claim it is God writing it. They never take their hand off the page, sometimes have their eyes closed, and have different handwriting. This correlates exactly with how the Church depicts the devil; working through deception rather than revelation and fear.

Look up/read Neale Donal Walsh's Conversations With God. That's a good example.

My ultimate point is that all the little things add up to justify belief in the bigger picture.

Actually, all you've really done is just listed supposed "miracles" and not really elaborated on them... I think that the burden of proof is on you, to prove that these miracles actually occurred.

I gave my case, whether it was convincing or not is irrelevant, you made a claim that there is a distinction which I've already explained, so the burden of proof is on you to adequately justify and explain this distinction.


Okay, the first one is the category for just extremely weird happenings. Stuff that just happens, but extremely rarely.

The second one, would be where there would be no doubt in anyone's mind whether God did it. He should leave some mark, like permanently engraved in the sky! Or maybe a floating continent (while he's doing this, he should be talking and generally telling us what to do), that would be direct evidence of God's involvement, especially if it was signed by him! C'mon surely an omnipotent being would be capable of that right?

I answered this further up in the post.

You seem to think my entire case lies on the Miracle of the Sun or marian apparitions. These are just few of hundreds of phenomena. Yes some of those claims are just rubbish, but after awhile the extent you have to go to refute every individual case just becomes illogical. After a certain point, it just becomes more logical to accept that supernatural phenomena occurs.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm not religious.

I apologize for making this assumption.

Ultimately, I'm arguing there is sufficient evidence to logically believe it. I'm saying that if you look at all the evidence, it becomes more logical to believe it than to not.

And what I'm saying is that all you have is anecdotal evidence. Just because some guy (and possibly his relatives) says that he writes in a language he doesn't know doesn't mean it necessarily happened. For me to believe such things occur, one of the following would need to happen:

1. I actually experience or witness something like this.

2. There is pure, objective, unbiased evidece that something like this happened. Such as a video,and I don't mean the horrible-quality stupid crap people put on youtube claiming there are aliens.​

So what I'm saying is: due to the lack of concrete evidence of these supernatural occurences, there's no way to convince me that anything like this would happen.

 

[Dre89]

And what I'm saying is that all you have is anecdotal evidence. Just because some guy (and possibly his relatives) says that he writes in a language he doesn't know doesn't mean it necessarily happened. For me to believe such things occur, one of the following would need to happen:

1. I actually experience or witness something like this.

2. There is pure, objective, unbiased evidece that something like this happened. Such as a video,and I don't mean the horrible-quality stupid crap people put on youtube claiming there are aliens.​

So what I'm saying is: due to the lack of concrete evidence of these supernatural occurences, there's no way to convince me that anything like this would happen.

The Miracle of the Sun actually happened though. There were tens of thousands of people there, and it got reported in several newspapers. Without making any assumptions about this phenomena, this is what we know is fact-

A girl claimed apparitions of Mary
She predicted the Miracle of the Sun
Tens of thousands people saw the sun, or sundog, look and behave strangely, although there were different accounts of what happened.
She then correctly predicted several other occurrences, such as an aurora before the war
Several other unrelated people who claimed to have apparitions of Mary also correctly predicted mutile phenomena

This is all fact without jumping to any conclusions, you can find evidence of this by looking it up. Now, given that there are hundreds of other cases just as convincing as this one, I would argue that one is allowed to make the logical assumption that supernatural phenomena occurs.

What I don't understand is why it seems scientists are allowed to make these assumptions yet others are not. Darwin noticed the similarities of various animals around him, and made assumptions. Evolution was considered scientific fact before anyone actually visibly saw an evolution occur.

By your logic, I don't see why theists are't allowed to say 'just because it appears certain animals are evolved versions of others, doesn't mean it actually is, just because it's the only explanation we have at the moment doesn't mean it's true, and saying so is an argument from ignorance'.

I'm not expecting anyone to believe supernatural phenomena on my word. What I don't like is when atheists say 'there's no sufficient evidence of it' when they clearly haven't looked at what the evidence actually is. I'm just suggesting that you actually investigate it first before making assumptions.

Also, I don't see the consistency in disregarding the scientific and medical evidence (in that it is medically inexplicable) that the Spring of Lourdes has miraculously cured 67 people, then blindly accepting anything science comes up with.

Again, these aren't the only cases. There are hundreds of cases equally as convincing as the ones I've just mentioned. It's no good generalising by saying it's all just mental dellusion, or there's no concrete evidence for it, because that just shows you haven't really looked at the evidence.

What I'd like to see is someone list the hundreds of convincing cases, such as all the miraculous cures, the scientific evidence of the Bleeding Eucharist, out-of-body percetion, The Shroud of Turin, Fatima, Miracle of the Sun etc., and then have an atheist individually give a naturalistic explanation for each one of them. My point is here is that if all the cases, and the evidence for them were compiled, it would be evident that the measures the athiest has to go to refute each one individually would be too far to be considered logical by a neutral.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What I don't understand is why it seems scientists are allowed to make these assumptions yet others are not. Darwin noticed the similarities of various animals around him, and made assumptions. Evolution was considered scientific fact before anyone actually visibly saw an evolution occur.

Uh, not really, because Darwin had collected huge amounts of evidence in his book the Origin of Species. And additionally, we have seen evolution occur for a very long time, it's called domestication.

By your logic, I don't see why theists are't allowed to say 'just because it appears certain animals are evolved versions of others, doesn't mean it actually is, just because it's the only explanation we have at the moment doesn't mean it's true, and saying so is an argument from ignorance'.

Actually, there is a profound difference here, because it doesn't just "appear" that certain animals evolved from others, it has actually been seen, documented and published. The connection between evolution by natural selection and its results is different to the connection between god and his miracles.

With evolution, there is plenty of evidence that evolution occurred, and none of it is in any real kind of doubt. There is fossils, comparritive anatomy, genetic evidence, observed instances of speciation, or adaptation. And the list goes on and on. Also, there is no other valid scientific theory that explains these sort of things as well as evolution does. Additionally, evolution explains how it happens, and actually makes predictions, which are later confirmed oftentimes.

With your miracles, all there is, is inexplicable phenomena, that you claim are caused by god. That doesn't explain anything, it's just a label that is slapped over gaps in scientific knowledge. People used the same argument to suggest that the sunrise was a result of divine intervention.

I'm not expecting anyone to believe supernatural phenomena on my word. What I don't like is when atheists say 'there's no sufficient evidence of it' when they clearly haven't looked at what the evidence actually is. I'm just suggesting that you actually investigate it first before making assumptions.

Fair enough.

Also, I don't see the consistency in disregarding the scientific and medical evidence (in that it is medically inexplicable) that the Spring of Lourdes has miraculously cured 67 people, then blindly accepting anything science comes up with.

Well, the miraculously curing of 67 people out of the many millions that come there,is a very poor success rate. Additionally, the so called cures, are most of the time, only partial cures and the people who are "cured" are often left with dilapidating and chronic illnesses. Also, there is a thing called spontaneous reemission where a person can suddenly become well, almost out of the blue. It is in no way supernatural.

Again, these aren't the only cases. There are hundreds of cases equally as convincing as the ones I've just mentioned. It's no good generalising by saying it's all just mental dellusion, or there's no concrete evidence for it, because that just shows you haven't really looked at the evidence.

What I'd like to see is someone list the hundreds of convincing cases, such as all the miraculous cures, the scientific evidence of the Bleeding Eucharist, out-of-body percetion, The Shroud of Turin, Fatima, Miracle of the Sun etc., and then have an atheist individually give a naturalistic explanation for each one of them. My point is here is that if all the cases, and the evidence for them were compiled, it would be evident that the measures the athiest has to go to refute each one individually would be too far to be considered logical by a neutral.

What do you mean? Are you going to say the same thing about UFOs? And for the record, the evidence for these cases are pretty poor. A couple of guys predicting the future, and a sundog occurring isn't that amazing to me.

I think the burden of proof should be on the positive side. You can't disprove that these things happened, you need to come up with the proof.

I think that your side should compile a list of miracles and prove to us that they really work, and that they really happened. Then after that you should prove to us why God had to be involved with the event, and why the current naturalistic explanations are 100% invalid. Then after that, you'd have to prove that it's impossible for future discoveries to figure out what happened. I'd like to see you try!

 

[Dre89]

Uh, not really, because Darwin had collected huge amounts of evidence in his book the Origin of Species. And additionally, we have seen evolution occur for a very long time, it's called domestication.

Actually, there is a profound difference here, because it doesn't just "appear" that certain animals evolved from others, it has actually been seen, documented and published. The connection between evolution by natural selection and its results is different to the connection between god and his miracles.

With evolution, there is plenty of evidence that evolution occurred, and none of it is in any real kind of doubt. There is fossils, comparritive anatomy, genetic evidence, observed instances of speciation, or adaptation. And the list goes on and on. Also, there is no other valid scientific theory that explains these sort of things as well as evolution does. Additionally, evolution explains how it happens, and actually makes predictions, which are later confirmed oftentimes.

But by the logic of atheists, I've never seen anything evolve, so it'd be illogical to believe in evolution.

And no, the evidence wasn't absolutely ireffutable when it was considered scientific fact. Darwin himself, a Christian Monk, admitted that it was only mere speculation and that people just took the ball and ran with it.

With your miracles, all there is, is inexplicable phenomena, that you claim are caused by god. That doesn't explain anything, it's just a label that is slapped over gaps in scientific knowledge. People used the same argument to suggest that the sunrise was a result of divine intervention.

It's not just hundreds of inexplicable phenomena though. It's a scripture that has correctly prophecised several future events, and has hundreds of supernatural occurences correlating to it.

Well, the miraculously curing of 67 people out of the many millions that come there,is a very poor success rate. Additionally, the so called cures, are most of the time, only partial cures and the people who are "cured" are often left with dilapidating and chronic illnesses. Also, there is a thing called spontaneous reemission where a person can suddenly become well, almost out of the blue. It is in no way supernatural.

You must of missed what I said before. For it to be considered a miracle, the following must have been established-

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

So no, there are no chronic illnesses afterward in these 67 cases (this is from only one spring).

If these miraculous healings were merely supernatural, it would be an absolutely enormous coincidence that they always seem to happen with Catholic figures- Nearly every saint, Mother Teresa cured countless, springs found by Catholics etc.

What do you mean? Are you going to say the same thing about UFOs? And for the record, the evidence for these cases are pretty poor. A couple of guys predicting the future, and a sundog occurring isn't that amazing to me.

That's a drastic straw-man. Again, you've made it out that I'm only going off one or two occurences. Did you even read my posts? There are hundreds of these occurrences, so many of them relating to the Church, and I'm only talking about the convincing ones.

I think that your side should compile a list of miracles and prove to us that they really work, and that they really happened. Then after that you should prove to us why God had to be involved with the event, and why the current naturalistic explanations are 100% invalid. Then after that, you'd have to prove that it's impossible for future discoveries to figure out what happened. I'd like to see you try!

If I put together all my personal experiences It'd be interesting, but you'd still just say there's no relation to God and that it's all coincidence of or something like that.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But by the logic of atheists, I've never seen anything evolve, so it'd be illogical to believe in evolution.

And no, the evidence wasn't absolutely ireffutable when it was considered scientific fact. Darwin himself, a Christian Monk, admitted that it was only mere speculation and that people just took the ball and ran with it.

That was 200 years ago! A lot has changed! Genetic evidence was uncovered, new fossils were found, speciation was observed. These are changes we can measure, test and define, not eyewitness claims of the supernatural. And inexplicable or explicable recoveries as the case maybe. The evidence we're dealing with is very different.

Additionally, Charles Darwin was not a Christian Monk, moreover a naturalist. He had doubts about his faith, and wasn't really a devout Christian by the time he died.

It's not just hundreds of inexplicable phenomena though. It's a scripture that has correctly prophecised several future events, and has hundreds of supernatural occurences correlating to it.

Oh and don't forget that your just choosing the stuff it got right, and abandoning the stuff it got wrong. There are a whole number of prophecies that are unfulfilled.

You must of missed what I said before. For it to be considered a miracle, the following must have been established-

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)

Sure, spontaneous remission and the placebo effect! Problem solved. Again spontaneous remission is where an illness pretty much disappears, without any treatment. Remember, it's rare and there so many chances for this sort of thing to happen at Lourdes, it's going to happen sooner or later. Additionally the diseases are the sort of diseases that can go into spontaneous remission, like cancer. They're not people regrowing severed limbs! I'd call that a miracle!

So no, there are no chronic illnesses afterward in these 67 cases (this is from only one spring).

I think it's 68 now by the way lol. Yeah, but that's an all time record, over how many years? Remember around 80000 people visit every year! That's a 0.085% success rate, if all the miracles occurred in one year! Spontaneous remission is going to occur sooner or later.

If these miraculous healings were merely supernatural, it would be an absolutely enormous coincidence that they always seem to happen with Catholic figures- Nearly every saint, Mother Teresa cured countless, springs found by Catholics etc.

Well, I'd imagine that sort of thing is going to happen in the background population, it's just that it wouldn't really be documented if it didn't occur in these circumstances.

That's a drastic straw-man. Again, you've made it out that I'm only going off one or two occurences. Did you even read my posts? There are hundreds of these occurrences, so many of them relating to the Church, and I'm only talking about the convincing ones.

Okay, sorry. I mean, there are hundreds of these occurrences, but they just don't really seem up to par.

If I put together all my personal experiences It'd be interesting, but you'd still just say there's no relation to God and that it's all coincidence of or something like that.

Remember, personal experiences aren't really a good form of evidence, as we already know, humans are terrible subjects to work with.

 

[Dre89]

I'm growing tired of this now, but if I make an argument and then say we should quit, it's not fair that I get the last line, so I'll end it now without making an argument.

But I will say though that personal, or at least my personal experiences are valid. There weren't any mental dellusions involved, I wasn't seeing any angels or anything like that. Also, everything I've experienced has happened to lots of other people too.

The problem with supernatural phenomena is that by scientific criteria it's not logical to believe. The problem is, it shouldn't really be assessed by scientific criteria. It's pre-rational, and the problem with that is because people will only believe in it when it happens to them, people don't include it in evolution theories, their atheistic ideas etc., when other people know it exists.

The problem with evaluating everything through scientific criteria is that scientific criteria simply doesn't apply to everything. By the logic of scientism, you could dismiss the credibility of a moral theory simply because theere is no scientific proof of it, which is absurd.

I guess I did end up making an argument after all lol.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'm growing tired of this now, but if I make an argument and then say we should quit, it's not fair that I get the last line, so I'll end it now without making an argument.

But I will say though that personal, or at least my personal experiences are valid. There weren't any mental dellusions involved, I wasn't seeing any angels or anything like that. Also, everything I've experienced has happened to lots of other people too.

The problem with supernatural phenomena is that by scientific criteria it's not logical to believe. The problem is, it shouldn't really be assessed by scientific criteria. It's pre-rational, and the problem with that is because people will only believe in it when it happens to them, people don't include it in evolution theories, their atheistic ideas etc., when other people know it exists.

The problem with evaluating everything through scientific criteria is that scientific criteria simply doesn't apply to everything. By the logic of scientism, you could dismiss the credibility of a moral theory simply because theere is no scientific proof of it, which is absurd.

I guess I did end up making an argument after all lol.

Don't worry, I feel like handing in the towel too. Just a note, morality exists in most scientists eyes. It seems to have evolved during the stages when we lived in small tribal communities. You'd have to be nice to everyone around you, because you rely on them to help you live... etc.

Seriously, I think that should have deserved it's own topic... It was pretty cool.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The Miracle of the Sun actually happened though. There were tens of thousands of people there, and it got reported in several newspapers. Without making any assumptions about this phenomena, this is what we know is fact-

A girl claimed apparitions of Mary
She predicted the Miracle of the Sun
Tens of thousands people saw the sun, or sundog, look and behave strangely, although there were different accounts of what happened.
She then correctly predicted several other occurrences, such as an aurora before the war
Several other unrelated people who claimed to have apparitions of Mary also correctly predicted mutile phenomena

This is all fact without jumping to any conclusions, you can find evidence of this by looking it up. Now, given that there are hundreds of other cases just as convincing as this one, I would argue that one is allowed to make the logical assumption that supernatural phenomena occurs.

What I don't understand is why it seems scientists are allowed to make these assumptions yet others are not. Darwin noticed the similarities of various animals around him, and made assumptions. Evolution was considered scientific fact before anyone actually visibly saw an evolution occur.

By your logic, I don't see why theists are't allowed to say 'just because it appears certain animals are evolved versions of others, doesn't mean it actually is, just because it's the only explanation we have at the moment doesn't mean it's true, and saying so is an argument from ignorance'.

I'm not expecting anyone to believe supernatural phenomena on my word. What I don't like is when atheists say 'there's no sufficient evidence of it' when they clearly haven't looked at what the evidence actually is. I'm just suggesting that you actually investigate it first before making assumptions.

Also, I don't see the consistency in disregarding the scientific and medical evidence (in that it is medically inexplicable) that the Spring of Lourdes has miraculously cured 67 people, then blindly accepting anything science comes up with.

Again, these aren't the only cases. There are hundreds of cases equally as convincing as the ones I've just mentioned. It's no good generalising by saying it's all just mental dellusion, or there's no concrete evidence for it, because that just shows you haven't really looked at the evidence.

What I'd like to see is someone list the hundreds of convincing cases, such as all the miraculous cures, the scientific evidence of the Bleeding Eucharist, out-of-body percetion, The Shroud of Turin, Fatima, Miracle of the Sun etc., and then have an atheist individually give a naturalistic explanation for each one of them. My point is here is that if all the cases, and the evidence for them were compiled, it would be evident that the measures the athiest has to go to refute each one individually would be too far to be considered logical by a neutral.

See, the problem here is that none of that is hard evidence. I'm not talking from a scientific standpoint, I'm talking from a practical standpoint. Look at all of the evidence you've given. A girl saw this. A man said that. A newspaper reports this. A person predicts that. It's all word of mouth, which isn't solid evidence. Solid evidence means getting clear pictures, videos, or forensic evidence that such things occured. Seriously, if you can show me a clear picture or video of such an occurence, I would give you a chance. But honestly just saying "how can you explain that a boy predicted [insert event here]" isn't a valid argument. This is what I'm trying to get at: believe what you want, but don't expect to convince anyone without solid, non anecdotal evidence.

 

[Dre89]

There is scientific proof of the Bleeding Eucharist, and teams of medical panelists (of varying beliefs) have deemed several miraculous cures medically inexplicable.

http://www.indefenseofthecross.com/Eucharistic_miracles.htm
Here is also a video of a eucharist allegedly on fire.

Whether the Miracle of the sun was supernatural or merely a sundog is left to debate, but it's fact that the girl correctly peedicted several phenomena. This even isn't contested at all, the skeptics themselves know this, we even have photos of the girl.

Or take the Spring of Lourdes for example, you may argue that the miraculous cures are not related to the water, but no one denies that the girl correctly predicted where the spring was.

In fact, no one, not even the skeptics are denying that these several people who had marian apparitions correctly predicted several occurences, the debate is whether these occurences were supernatural, or if the apapritions were from a supernatural source.

You're trying to discard truths which the skeptics themselves accept.

I also think you're missing my point. I'm not trying to argue that these occurences fit your criteria, I'm arguing that your criteria is incorrect. Essentially, your criteria accepts only incidents with naturalistic explanations for them, because only naturalistic occurrences will provide forensic evidence. So really, you were never open to accepting the supernatural in the first place.

You also seem to act as if the occurences I mentioned are the only ones there, when in reality there are hundreds, I just can't list all of them.

The thing is, even the ways in which the supernatural occurences occur correlates to the way Catholics believe that God reveals Himself. He doesn't provide His premises in the Bible through one or two lines of scripture, it's when you put everything together you start to see the whole picture. This is the criticism of Protestantism, they are often selective what scripture they use.

It's the same with these alleged miracles. One alone will not convince you of the faith, but when you look at the whole picture (ie. the hundreds and hundreds of miracles that have occured, most of which correlate to the Church), you see the bigger picture.

It's exactly the same as when I became Catholic (I'm not anymore). I started having unusual occurences in my life. One or two wouldn't convince me, but when you get a string of 20 or 30 in quick succession (which I had), all relating to the Church, and each one specifically relating to something current in your life, it makes you question it. The thing is, several other people say this has happened to them as well.

I'll give you an exmaple of one. A friend of mine (a Catholic), wears a necklace wit ha cross on it. Recently, she began to get 'impure' with a guy, and her cross somehow fell off her neck. The thing is, nothing touched it at all, it somehow fell off. It's not as if the neclace was ripped either (which would have happened if she ripped it off accidently), it was simply undone at the joint, with seemingly no external influence at all. She realised she'd gone too far, and vowed not to be impure again.

On it's own, that occurence is nothing. Considering that I've had about 20 or 30 of those (not just physical things breaking of course) and I know of others who have experienced the same thing too, it becomes logical to assume it's more than just a million in one coincidence.

Actually let me glance over a couple of correlations to Catholicism

-We know that several unrelated people, all claiming marian apparitions, have correctly predicted multiple million in one occurences

- We know of hundreds of medically inexplicable cures. Ironically, most, if not all were in relation to a signifocant Catholic figure, whether be a spring or a saint etc.

-There is alleged scientific evidence of the Bleeding Eucharist

- The early Church/Bible claimed that the Church will remain infallible, to this day it has.

-The early Church/Bible claimed that the official teachings of the Church won't change, to this day they haven't. Yes Popes have been corrupt, but they never changed the teachings in 'Faith and Morals' doctrine. The one Pope who intended to do this died just before he could.

-We have historical evidence that Jesus existed, it's just not evident whether he was the son of God or not.

-Several historical, non-religious sources provide similar accounts to those portrayed in the Bible.

-Instances claimed to be demonic possession or obsession (eg. writing evil things with your eyes closed, different handwriting, never taking hand off page) correlate precisely to how the Church predicted how teh devil operates.

-It's been claimed theological fact that the devil can't se einto the future. To this day, no instance of demonic possession or obsession has allowed insight into the future.

There's alot more of course but I'm mentally drained now lol.

My point is you don't need forensic evidence when logic can give you the answer instead.

There are hundreds more miracles, and alot more correlations than what I've said. I believe to refute every miracle and correlation individually (which are at least in the hundreds), requires you to go beyond a point that is logical.

So again, my argument is based on logic rather than blind faith or pursuit of comfort. I'm sick of people in the DH social thread saying my arguments have no grounding. I never contradicted any scientific fact, I only argued issues which science has no explanations for. Just because my arguments aren't scientific doesn't mean they're not well-founded.

I've referenced some of the most influential thinkers in history (Aquinas, Aristotle, Kant, Chesterton, Cicero plus those of lesser significance such as Samuel Clarke, Levinas) people who have revolutionised western culture. Iu nderstand people disagreeing with me, but to say that my arguments aren't well founded is to say that these people are inferior debaters to you, which is laughable.

 

[GoldShadow]

There is scientific proof of the Bleeding Eucharist, and teams of medical panelists (of varying beliefs) have deemed several miraculous cures medically inexplicable.

How do you figure? I find literally zero, count it, zero medically or scientifically oriented sites that suggest anything of the sort. In fact, every single source that I found is - surprise! - strongly religious in nature.

http://www.indefenseofthecross.com/Eucharistic_miracles.htm
Here is also a video of a eucharist allegedly on fire.

Your idea of proof is a fuzzy youtube video?

 

[Dre89]

How do you figure? I find literally zero, count it, zero medically or scientifically oriented sites that suggest anything of the sort. In fact, every single source that I found is - surprise! - strongly religious in nature.

Well they named one of the scientists who confirmed it, so you can probably look him up if you can find his name (I can't remember it). There was defintiely a scientist involved, because I know one site was talking about it in scientific terminology I didn't really understand. Now you'll argue that it's probably just corruption (eg. paying off the scientist) , but considering several other miracles are known fact (ie.unrelated people claiming to have marian apparitions correctly predicting multiple a million in one occurences), it probably isn't.

Also, discarding sources because they are strongly religious then permits me to discard sources advocating evolution because they are strongly atheist.

Not all sources that report miracles are religious either. I don't know what it's like where you come from, but in Australia you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that the media is anti-religion. Despite this, the media still reports alleged miracles. The most recent one which comes to mind was a lady terminally-ill with cancer, she obtained a relic relating to the now ordained Saint Mary Mackillop and started praying, and then she became completely healed of her illness. Various medical experts could not explain this at all. this was reported in the media, probably before any religious organisation knew about it.

Your idea of proof is a fuzzy youtube video?

To be honest I just put it there because you said the Church has no video proof.

 

[Sucumbio]

Miracles of the Eucharist have not been officially and independently verified by any scientific body outside of the Catholic Church. Nor will the Catholic Church -allow- any independent investigations to be permissible in catechism.

Just FYI.

-source

 

[Aesir]

Also, discarding sources because they are strongly religious then permits me to discard sources advocating evolution because they are strongly atheist.

Um what?

would you disregard this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

[GoldShadow]

Also, discarding sources because they are strongly religious then permits me to discard sources advocating evolution because they are strongly atheist.

What on earth are you talking about?

What do evolution and atheism have to do with one another?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What on earth are you talking about?

What do evolution and atheism have to do with one another?

Indeed, there are plenty of "evolutionists" who are religious. I can name one prominent one off the top of my head; Kenneth Miller, the guy who stood up for evolution in court is a devout catholic. There are many more.

Would you disregard his interpretation of evolution? (which is very similar to most atheist perspectives on evolution I might add.)

Furthermore, would that then permit you disregard fossils, DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, all of which are evidence for evolution? Remember, these forms of evidence have no agenda, they just naturally occur.

 

[Dre89]

No I wouldn't disregard scientific evidence, but my point is you guys are immediately discarding evidence because it comes from a religious source. But then again, there's been plenty of alleged evidence that comes from third-party sources.

Also Sucumbio where in that source did it mention the Church not allowing a third-party to examine the Eucharist? I couldn't find it. I'm pretty sure they named the scientist who researched it anyway.

To be honest, I'm growing tired of constantly debating multiple people in a hardcore fashion all the time. I find that it's less productive for learning than just sitting back and asking less provocative questions.

So I just wanna ask a few questions-

How did scientists conclude big bang was fact? It was my understanding that to conclude something as fact there had to be an experiment. To me though, the only valid experiment would be one where you remove all matter from the world then see if it expands on its own accord, but surely no experiment did that.

I guess what I'm asking is that has it been observed that unified matter can somehow randomly expand, independant of any other external source what so ever? If so, how did they isolate it from all other matter? That seems impossible to me, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Evolution theory proposes that everything in the world is constantly evolving, but it appears to me that animals today are perfectly adapted to their ecosystems. Ecosystems (those which haven't been affected by humans) seem to function perfectly, so why would there be any need to evolve? Or more importantly, what would evolve if the system doesn't need any fixing?

Since humans began recording history, what evolutions have been witnessed by humans? As in evolutions that have occured during human existence. This isn't including those induced by humanity (domestication etc.).

Evolution theory proposes that life evolved from non-living matter. Has this been replicated with experiments (this is what the Urey Miller experiment did wasn't it)? More importantly though, since human existence has the evolution from non-living to living occured by purely natural means, as in without human interference?

Since human existence, what non-living objects have evolved? I'm not just talking about ecosystems, I'm talking about singular objects such as rocks, metals, soils etc.

If I think of anything else I'll let you know. Again, these questions aren't to start arguments, I just wanna learn.

I can't really think of any questions you guys would want to ask me, but if you have any I'd be more than happy to answer them.

 

[Dre89]

Just bumping this because I really want my questions answered.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Just bumping this because I really want my questions answered.

It's stickied! there's no need to bump the thread...

Anywho, onto the questions.

1st up the Big Bang:

The Big Bang is a theory not a fact, it is an explanation for a set of facts such as background radiation; the afterglow from the Big Bang, or the expansion of the universe. It provides a naturalistic explanation for these phenomena.

The question about the experimentation is rather strange. Scientist accept current theories about how stars evolve, despite never actually having done experiments on stars in the lab. All that we know about stars is from observation, not experimentation. Same sort of thing applies here. I know, it's better to have experiments, but in the case of the Big Bang, it wouldn't be possible.

I think this is what you'd have to do: Compress a section of space-time with matter inside it, so much that the actual section of space-time and all the laws of physics concerning that section are compressed into an infinitely small point. Then, you have to remove things like time, space, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and anything else that may affect the experiment in any way at all. Then you can sit-back and watch what may or may not unfold. This is impossible with our current level of technology and probably will be for some time.

As for whether a singularity can randomly expand. I think it can, given the right conditions of course. That's what the big bang theory is on about. It's got plenty of evidence supporting, the homogeneousness of the universe, the expanding universe, the background radiation, and quite a bit more. These are predictions made by the Big Bang theory and they're confirmed by observation. This means it's doing a pretty good job!

Evolution:

Organisms today aren't perfectly adapted to their ecosystems. Lions don't eat 100% of the food they catch, plants don't convert 100% of the light they receive into chemical energy, etc. This means, that there's always room for improvement; you can always run faster, be smarter or be stronger. So, evolution can occur, because there is room to improve.

Furthermore, the environment that the organisms inhabit may change due to a number of things. Volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, subtle changes in the Earth's orbit etc. This means that the well adapted species have to now adapt to fit in with the new environment. This creates room for evolution.

After that, often the thing that the species may eat, whether it be plants or other animals, may evolve as well, this mean that it will evolve to thwart its predators, while the predators evolve to catch their prey. This means the system will go no where, with the predators ending up with the same level or similar of relative effectiveness as they started with. This creates a large amount of room for evolution.

About observed instances of evolution, there have been plenty of cases where humans have on the scale of around a few decades or more, witness entirely new features of organisms evolve. For example, nylon-eating bacteria have been found. Nylon has been only around for less than a century, so the feature must have evolved within that time. Italian wall lizards when isolated on an island, were found to have evolved cecal valves (rather like an appendix, they slow down the passage of food in the digestive system) and other features that were different from their parent population. In a controlled lab, during a 20 year long experiment, E. coli, normally digesting only glucose, evolved to digest citrate to allow them to eat a second source of food. There have been many more examples of this sort of thing occurring, and this is one of the reasons that evolution is regarded as a scientific fact and a theory by most scientists today. (wikipedia it! It'll help.)

About the origin of life, evolution proposes nothing. Instead, this is deferred to another theory; Abiogenesis. This has never been replicated, ever, and we have never found any organism that didn't come with this current "batch" of organisms. This means that all known life shares a common ancestor, if evolution and abiogenesis are to be accepted. Abiogenesis is still an new field of science, and we have gotten close to producing new life when replicating the conditions of the early earth, but we have never actually produced a self-replicating entity.

About non-living objects, such as rocks, metals and so forth, don't evolve in the biological sense. This is because evolution only happens to things that can reproduce with variation. Rocks and metals don't do that. They change, yes, but they don't evolve. They are described by different fields of science, such as chemistry, geology, physics etc -not biology.

 

[Sieguest]

1st up the Big Bang:
I think this is what you'd have to do: Compress a section of space-time with matter inside it, so much that the actual section of space-time and all the laws of physics concerning that section are compressed into an infinitely small point. Then, you have to remove things like time, space, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and anything else that may affect the experiment in any way at all. Then you can sit-back and watch what may or may not unfold. This is impossible with our current level of technology and probably will be for some time.

I think that would never be possible to perform an experiment of that nature; considering that you'd have to remove time, but time as we know it, is a completely independent and is an idea out of our control. It has probably existed even before we managed to give this sensation (for lack of better wording) the label of "time", (but that would lead to a completely different tangent so stopping there). I just don't see how technology could ever develop to stop a sensation that we've only superimposed a measurement upon

-Source

As for whether a singularity can randomly expand. I think it can, given the right conditions of course. That's what the big bang theory is on about. It's got plenty of evidence supporting, the homogeneousness of the universe, the expanding universe, the background radiation, and quite a bit more. These are predictions made by the Big Bang theory and they're confirmed by observation. This means it's doing a pretty good job!

But what exactly defines these conditions? That means those conditions would have to exist first, and for those conditions to exist, another set of conditions must be met to meet the previous conditions. That's another thing that muddles me when I think about the big bang theory. How does it explain the concept of causation? We see today that every thing is caused by another event. You may say "I randomly decided to come onto my computer today". But that was caused by a thought process, and that process may be caused by a subliminal trigger so on and so forth.
Anyway, the Big Bang Theory attempts to explain an initial causation for the universe's existence, so for there to be conditions that must be in place for a singularity to expand is a direct contradiction to that initial causation.

-Source
-Source

 

[GoldShadow]

Just bumping this because I really want my questions answered.

Read the following threads/posts:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=239323
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=6024694#post6024694

Regarding the big bang, see some of Alt's posts. Give me a minute and I'll find them.

edit: Here they are:

Here are a few of Alt's posts from older threads to read:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6207558&postcount=800
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6499748&postcount=838
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6026278&postcount=113
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4781764&postcount=196

 

[Sieguest]

The problem is in assuming that there was a "bang" in the big bang. If there wasn't a bang, we don't have any of these silly contradictions we're all so concerned about. Time could just approach the "moment of creation" asymptotically, and never reach it.

So I'm thinking by his use of "bang" he means that we shouldn't assume that the big bang had a condition to set it in motion in the first place, being an occurrence that happened outside of time?

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.

And by this, stating that the big bang, happening outside of time, is an exemption to causality. I guess that makes sense if you think about it, seeing as how for this universe to exist there had to be an initial causation at some point, something that's an exemption to the rule, and then with it's occurrence, sets the rule into action. Kind of like some graphs.

The Big Bang says that everything in the universe began with one huge explosion. Our progress thus far in physics has been extremely successful in describing the universe in the moments after the big bang. But when you talk about the actual moment of creation, things break down. At that moment, energy seemingly popped out of nowhere. At that moment, all kinds of stuff happened that we can't explain.

With all the previous quotes presented, wouldn't the part in red be contradictory to them? Considering that the big bang happened outside of time, yet giving it measurement of time.

While I personally am Christian (after reading his post to Lord of Morning I was shocked, and yet could follow what he said), what I've read makes sense. Though, I personally don't understand why Science and Christianity clash like they do. I've always tried to harmonize them in my thinking, but that's off topic x.x


edit: A thought, if the above are taken into account, would that mean that we would not be able to replicate this as an experiment in the present day or in the future for that matter, since now we in time?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think that would never be possible to perform an experiment of that nature; considering that you'd have to remove time, but time as we know it, is a completely independent and is an idea out of our control. It has probably existed even before we managed to give this sensation (for lack of better wording) the label of "time", (but that would lead to a completely different tangent so stopping there). I just don't see how technology could ever develop to stop a sensation that we've only superimposed a measurement upon.[/COLOR="Sienna"]

Source:http://www.theorderoftime.com/science/sciences/articles/time.html

Exactly my point! It's impossible so we cant do that experiment! That's why we can't "test" the big bang theory in the lab.

But what exactly defines these conditions? That means those conditions would have to exist first, and for those conditions to exist, another set of conditions must be met to meet the previous conditions. That's another thing that muddles me when I think about the big bang theory. How does it explain the concept of causation? We see today that every thing is caused by another event. You may say "I randomly decided to come onto my computer today". But that was caused by a thought process, and that process may be caused by a subliminal trigger so on and so forth.
Anyway, the Big Bang Theory attempts to explain an initial causation for the universe's existence, so for there to be conditions that must be in place for a singularity to expand is a direct contradiction to that initial causation.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

It doesn't explain the concept of causation, it attempts to explain the origin our current universe. Furthermore, time was created during the big bang, so previous conditions and any causality breaks down. Additionally, the right conditions is no conditions! Nothing! A void! Those are the initial conditions, at least that's what I think....

The Big Bang may not explain the initial cause of the universe or universes, but currently it's our best shot. Science isn't perfect, it can't explain everything, but it's the best we've got.

 

[Sieguest]

It doesn't explain the concept of causation, it attempts to explain the origin our current universe. Furthermore, time was created during the big bang, so previous conditions and any causality breaks down. Additionally, the right conditions is no conditions! Nothing! A void! Those are the initial conditions, at least that's what I think....

Then how would the singularity even exist? If there is nothing, then nothing can be created. Saying otherwise breaks the Law of Conservation of Matter.

On another note; would anyone be interested in discussing with me the practicality of the grading system in Elementary and High School education? Or the Harmonization of God and Science? These are both topics I'm fairly interested in.

 

[Dre89]

It's stickied! there's no need to bump the thread...

Anywho, onto the questions.

1st up the Big Bang:

The Big Bang is a theory not a fact, it is an explanation for a set of facts such as background radiation; the afterglow from the Big Bang, or the expansion of the universe. It provides a naturalistic explanation for these phenomena.

The question about the experimentation is rather strange. Scientist accept current theories about how stars evolve, despite never actually having done experiments on stars in the lab. All that we know about stars is from observation, not experimentation. Same sort of thing applies here. I know, it's better to have experiments, but in the case of the Big Bang, it wouldn't be possible.

I think this is what you'd have to do: Compress a section of space-time with matter inside it, so much that the actual section of space-time and all the laws of physics concerning that section are compressed into an infinitely small point. Then, you have to remove things like time, space, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces and anything else that may affect the experiment in any way at all. Then you can sit-back and watch what may or may not unfold. This is impossible with our current level of technology and probably will be for some time.

I'm confused now, because Aesir said BB was sceintific fact, meaning that it was impossible to refute. Yet it appears to me that you actually don't have scientific evidence that that matter could drastically expand outward from a single point without the aid of any external source at all.

Isn't it a sort of scientific law that matter cannot grow/evolve/develop merely from internal information, but requires external sources? Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for whether a singularity can randomly expand. I think it can, given the right conditions of course. That's what the big bang theory is on about. It's got plenty of evidence supporting, the homogeneousness of the universe, the expanding universe, the background radiation, and quite a bit more. These are predictions made by the Big Bang theory and they're confirmed by observation. This means it's doing a pretty good job!

I thought the whole point of BB was to put those conditions in place, not require prior conditions. Doesn't that defeat the whole concept of BB?

Also, 'right conditions' means external sources, I thought the whole idea was that matter could expand without the aid of any external sources at all.

Evolution:

Organisms today aren't perfectly adapted to their ecosystems. Lions don't eat 100% of the food they catch, plants don't convert 100% of the light they receive into chemical energy, etc. This means, that there's always room for improvement; you can always run faster, be smarter or be stronger. So, evolution can occur, because there is room to improve.

The only reason why lions don't have a 100% success rate is because of the 'evolutions' of their prey. Supposing that lions currently have a 50% success rate, it is the rate which keeps the ecosystem in harmony. If lions were to elevate to 100%, this would disrupt the ecosystem, which would make no evlutionary sense.

Furthermore, the environment that the organisms inhabit may change due to a number of things. Volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics, subtle changes in the Earth's orbit etc. This means that the well adapted species have to now adapt to fit in with the new environment. This creates room for evolution.

That's not the environment evolving itself, that's something happening to it and forcing to adapt. Having a garden of flowers evolve into different flowers on its own is different to me throwing oil all over them and forcing them to adapt.

The latter scenario is how microevolution allegedly occurs. Macroevolution was supposedly occuring before any of these 'interferences' could occur, therefore it seems to me that for evolution theory to be consistent, environments would have to always be gradually evolving (as in the objects such as trees, metals, rocks etc. evolving) for no apparent reason at all.

From what you've said that doesn't seem to be happening though.

After that, often the thing that the species may eat, whether it be plants or other animals, may evolve as well, this mean that it will evolve to thwart its predators, while the predators evolve to catch their prey. This means the system will go no where, with the predators ending up with the same level or similar of relative effectiveness as they started with. This creates a large amount of room for evolution.

But if evolution is random and not governed by an intellect, it seems far too coincidental that animals would evolve at the exact same rate as to cancel each other's evolutions out, and happen to evolve the exact traits which they need to predate or avoid rpedation. It just doesn't seem random to me at all.

About observed instances of evolution, there have been plenty of cases where humans have on the scale of around a few decades or more, witness entirely new features of organisms evolve. For example, nylon-eating bacteria have been found. Nylon has been only around for less than a century, so the feature must have evolved within that time. Italian wall lizards when isolated on an island, were found to have evolved cecal valves (rather like an appendix, they slow down the passage of food in the digestive system) and other features that were different from their parent population. In a controlled lab, during a 20 year long experiment, E. coli, normally digesting only glucose, evolved to digest citrate to allow them to eat a second source of food. There have been many more examples of this sort of thing occurring, and this is one of the reasons that evolution is regarded as a scientific fact and a theory by most scientists today. (wikipedia it! It'll help.)

That was a silly kind of question for me to ask, considering I don't really have a problem with microevolution. But microevolution was all those examples really showed.

About the origin of life, evolution proposes nothing. Instead, this is deferred to another theory; Abiogenesis. This has never been replicated, ever, and we have never found any organism that didn't come with this current "batch" of organisms. This means that all known life shares a common ancestor, if evolution and abiogenesis are to be accepted. Abiogenesis is still an new field of science, and we have gotten close to producing new life when replicating the conditions of the early earth, but we have never actually produced a self-replicating entity.

But if abiogenesis were true you wouldn't have to, considering that it should be occuring everywhere in nature. But from what I'm gathering from you it seems to me it isn't.

About non-living objects, such as rocks, metals and so forth, don't evolve in the biological sense. This is because evolution only happens to things that can reproduce with variation. Rocks and metals don't do that. They change, yes, but they don't evolve. They are described by different fields of science, such as chemistry, geology, physics etc -not biology.

But didn't they develop to the way they are now?

 

[GoldShadow]

Again,
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9788249&postcount=391

 

[Dre89]

Alot of that didn't really relate to what I was asking.

Also using mathematical equations for concepts such as time and space has been shown to be implausible. Richard Dawkins proposed a mathematical infinite regress at time, and he is considered one of the biggest jokes in the academic communtiy by both theists and atheists alike. Mathematical equations don't equate to reality.

Also, most of those posts only made sense if you had certain presumptions. For example, saying 'we know abiogensis happened, we just don't know how' is only valid if you accept bb, and considering it hasn't been proved that matter can expand without external sources of information, you don't have to accept bb.

Similarily, time curvature is a popular theory because it makes sense in light of bb, but there's the possibilty that bb isn't true. The scientists can claim it to be fact all they want, but I think that's an exaggeration considering the expansion of matter without an external source hasn't been shown, and seems to contradict laws of matter, considering that all other matter appears to need external courses to grow/develop.

The majority of those posts seem to be 'well bb is true, therefore this must be too, we just don't know how it works'. I don't see why the possibility that bb is false is never considered.

Also, I believe there is a difference between generating abiogenesis in an experiment, and it contributing to macroevolution. If abiogenesis was so abundant and was apart of the natural process of contributing to macroevolution, it would still be abundant in nature today, but it's clearly not.

To me it doesn't make sense that non-living matter would evolve into living matter, but once living matter existed it would stop doing so.

 

[Aesir]

Where did Dawkins say that? I don't really pay much attention to him as I do Daniel Dennet.

 

[Sieguest]

Also using mathematical equations for concepts such as time and space has been shown to be implausible. Richard Dawkins proposed a mathematical infinite regress at time, and he is considered one of the biggest jokes in the academic communtiy by both theists and atheists alike. Mathematical equations don't equate to reality.

So just because one man was ridiculed for using mathematical equations to explain something makes it implausible? Mathematics is a part of Physics, and Physics is a part of reality, as such, Mathematics is a part of reality.

Also, most of those posts only made sense if you had certain presumptions. For example, saying 'we know abiogensis happened, we just don't know how' is only valid if you accept bb, and considering it hasn't been proved that matter can expand without external sources of information, you don't have to accept bb.

Actually, abiogenesis would explain the initial causation of an action. For some people this may happen to explain BB, but no where does it say that abiogenesis only pertains to BB, it could pertain to another entity for all we know.

Similarily, time curvature is a popular theory because it makes sense in light of bb, but there's the possibilty that bb isn't true. The scientists can claim it to be fact all they want, but I think that's an exaggeration considering the expansion of matter without an external source hasn't been shown, and seems to contradict laws of matter, considering that all other matter appears to need external courses to grow/develop.

Time curvature could also make sense in light of another entity as well, it's just saying that time may infinitely approach a boundary(ies) and never meaning it would never end, this applies both forward and backward. One could replace BB with God and still follow similar reasoning. Both are an entity that have yet to be solidly proven true, and both are claimed to be an initial cause for the universe's existence, and time curvature along with the parallel of time to something like a rational function could be used to explain why we never see this initial cause or have means to reproduce/see how it would happen.

The majority of those posts seem to be 'well bb is true, therefore this must be too, we just don't know how it works'. I don't see why the possibility that bb is false is never considered.

Again, most of the concepts there could be used as general reasoning to explain why we can't palpitate the entity that created the universe. It's just explaining that this entity must exist outside of time, and with its occurrence, set the causal chain into effect, being the ONLY exemption of causality due to its nature. If an exemption was not present, then there could be no way for the other effects to take place, meaning no universe.

 

[Dre89]

So just because one man was ridiculed for using mathematical equations to explain something makes it implausible? Mathematics is a part of Physics, and Physics is a part of reality, as such, Mathematics is a part of reality.

Of course it's not just one person, but mathematical equations don't always equate to reality.

People have tried to mathematically justify the infinite regress of time, which is not only logically impossible, it's literally impossible too.

Actually, abiogenesis would explain the initial causation of an action. For some people this may happen to explain BB, but no where does it say that abiogenesis only pertains to BB, it could pertain to another entity for all we know.

People assume abiogenesis must have happened happened because bb did. Abiogenesis is only a necessity if you're not a creationist, but bb is not fact, so abiogenesis is not necessarily a necessity.

Time curvature could also make sense in light of another entity as well, it's just saying that time may infinitely approach a boundary(ies) and never meaning it would never end, this applies both forward and backward. One could replace BB with God and still follow similar reasoning. Both are an entity that have yet to be solidly proven true, and both are claimed to be an initial cause for the universe's existence, and time curvature along with the parallel of time to something like a rational function could be used to explain why we never see this initial cause or have means to reproduce/see how it would happen.



Again, most of the concepts there could be used as general reasoning to explain why we can't palpitate the entity that created the universe. It's just explaining that this entity must exist outside of time, and with its occurrence, set the causal chain into effect, being the ONLY exemption of causality due to its nature. If an exemption was not present, then there could be no way for the other effects to take place, meaning no universe.

I'm aware that the original being must be independant of time, everyone knows I argue that in pretty much every post I make here lol. What I'm saying is that time curvature is not a necessity, but it makes sense in light of bb, and this is where it gains a lot of popularity.

If we supposed that God were true, time curvature would not be necessary. God would exist in eternity, which is timeless and changeless. Time and change would only exist in the universe, negating the need for curvature. I'm not saying the curvature theory is wrong, but it only becomes a necessity to accomodate bb, which itself is not a fact.