Printable View
"feed powdered cattle to cattle" and "gullibility" has to do with the validity of evolution?
Scientific theories are treated as indisputable fact by those who make science and its agents their god and priests. Some post here. Some of us are not so gullible.
This is nonsense. Could you please provide one example of anyone that says science is god or that the folks that dedicate their lives to better understanding the universe are its priests? Please, what tripe!Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
What was the last science course you had, and where did you take it? Here's what they teach at the University of Rochester, but its pretty much the same everywhere:
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Now where does it say that scientific theories are to be treated as indisputable facts.
The fact that it is an argument (and has been for a number of decades [at minimum]) should be enough to show that your simple reduction of the debate into "there's no evidence for God so there" is insufficient and does not take into account the inductive nature of science which can only prove so much and must rely upon a certain degree of educated speculation to draw its conclusions. Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Secondly, your quick dismissal of this argument is only valid if every aspect of life can be understood and explained by scientific processes and "evidence." Please don't expect me to believe that every single aspect of the life you live, the attitudes you have, the beliefs you hold are due to "evidence." You yourself (if I recall correctly and correct me if I'm wrong) have indicated that you believe in a Divine Being - got proof (or a "shred of evidence") for that particular belief? By your own reasoning, that is an absurd belief because it cannot be proved.
I believe in a divine being but I don't base my reason off it. I don't have a divine being influencing my actions and decisions. In fact, I don't care if there is a divine being or not.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm just read it
You make it seem as if evolution is just a "guess"...as if we have no evidence whatsoever. What's "not definitive" is the fact that you base your theory of human existence off a parable/myth in the bible.
It's sick to watch some of you educated people lower yourselves down to creationism. http://anthropology.net/user/kambiz_...e_in_evolution
Then why bother to believe in one at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Since you apparently didn't read my post closely, here it is again with key words highlighted and Cliff's Notes-like interpolations placed for your convenience:Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Note that I am not arguing for the existence of God so much as I am asking you to consider the "holes" (however small) that science contains within it [i.e. that science must base certain conclusions on clues and educated guesses based on available evidence]. To repeat myself: science can prove pretty irrefutably many, many things - but evolution it cannot [prove irrefutably, that is, because we weren't there to see it and the theory cannot be tested]. It can put forth a reasonably convincing case - but that's not definitive [in terms of being undeniably true based on presentable evidence].
In other words: I never said it was a "guess." I said that the best science can do in terms of evolution is 90%+ (that's pretty generous of me, don't you think?).
(If JGL is reading this: 90%+ is a guess, by the way :) Let me know if my numbers are off).
That and some other things - some of which that occur within the human heart. Dismiss away: there is more to life than facts and that which you can see. In fact, all the great literature of the world (along with most spiritual texts) emphasize again and again that there is much more to life than what can be seen, measured, observed. Such concrete reasoning that "only what I see exists" is often considered a characteristic of infantile thinking (which, by the way, I'm not applying to present company).Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Well, I'm sure you'll get used to it someday. I've managed to tolerate evolutionists'/atheists' "lowering" of me into the crowning evolutionary step of pond scum and primates pretty well (though I will admit that it's an acquired taste :D ).Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
There really isn't a point in debating this. Once someone believes something (and they set their heart on it) it's very difficult to change their views (this goes for both sides of the argument).
It doesn't get clearer than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
"Clear" doesn't necessarily = convincing.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
At the risk of making you think I'm just trying to be contrary: I didn't know that the only point of debating was to change someone's mind. I was under the impression that part of debate was simply laying out the arguments and evaluating them, learning what the arguments against your position are and evaluating your own position in light of the opposition. I certainly had no illusion that any of my arguments would convert anybody here. I engage in debate here to hear what others say and see if they'll consider my position or my points. So yeah, if you're here to "win" well that is a waste of time.
I think the problem of this thread is... Chrisitian idea of God, vs some form of divine, vs science is god.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
<Well, I really don't know how we got here, but I'll take it! It was what I was trying to say, perhaps in a terrible choice of words. Obviously, evolution is taking place still, as things adapt to an ever-changing world. The beginning was all I ever wonder about to begin with. Pure evolution, man and ape from a common ancestor, I cannot see, yet I concede the possibility, since everything is possible with God.>
Looks like I was rather slapdash in my choice of language. I was not in any way trying to suggest that evolution is on a par with religious arguments. Any argument for anything in nthe physical Universe that is not evidence-based on physical events is a fruitless argument in my opinion. You can wish all kinds of arguments into existence, but only evidence-based arguments will have any weight to them.
I suppose I could "split a hair" and challenge the term evidence. What kind of "evidence" do you consider authoritative?Quote:
Originally Posted by atiguhya padma
Whew. This is why the argument persists. If one endeavors to accept both science and God, the evolutionist says "Not good enough. You still have something in the mix that cannot be measured, quantified, etc., and until we can do that, we will not believe in it." And yet, the idea of infinity doesn't seem to bother you at all. Who can measure the limits of infinity? With a universe that is still expanding, who can quantify the borders? With technology making more and more of the once impossible possible, the lines between what can happen and what is pure fiction begin to blur. So, now, having made the statement that God is possible, you wish to crawfish on that statement. Why? You were right to begin with, you know...
You know that the value of PI is approximately 3.14159265358... Have you ever tried to actually prove it? It is much harder to do so than it sounds, because you must prove every step you use as you go. But there isn't a doubt in your mind that this is correct. Nor in mine. Proof isn't always easy to gain. And not everything in science is proven, some is accepted without need of proof. I don't tell science they are wrong on everything, or even the vast majority of things. But I believe in God, and for me, I require no proof. And for me, chance will never prove evolution's beginnings. You can't prove chance. Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't. 50-50. I still accept that things evolve and change. I am not the enemy, AP. Never was, never will be. Here's to you! :thumbs_up
zeppelin, I know what you mean about debating and such, but this argument can go on forever. It's not even worth debating because the same points are brought up over again.
Good points, pendragon. Sometimes it's scary to think about how vast the universe really is. Actually most astronomers believe in God because of this. read this article: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=231
Right: the fact that it probably will go on "forever" tells me that there is no simple answer (or even definitive answer in terms of "winning") that will end it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
I think the dialogue is useful if (and only if) both sides are willing to listen to the other and consider the positions rather than rejecting them out-of-hand without even trying to see the reason behind the position. If that's going on (which happens more often than not) then, yes, the debate become two voices talking over each other.
I assume that people simply disappear from the thread when they tire of this perpetual debate.
Hi all! I believe in God the father and that he created the world in 7 days.
And...I really don't want to read the last 92 pages of argument or even the last 2 pages so could someone update me on where the argument is at it's current point (what is being currently discussed), where the argument is heading, any important questions and/or arguments have been posted? It would be helpful so that I could join "the fun".