Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
74,521 - 74,540 of 112,945 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79031
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
Even if there is evidence for God, we will never have consensual validation for it.
Context of discovery is the initial phase of research, in which observations, beliefs, information, and general knowledge lead to a new idea or a different way of thinking about some phenomenon.
How would we achieve this if we don't first validate the existence of God or at least be open to the idea?
Science itself is not closed to the idea. In fact it is perfectly open to the possibility of anything you can think of - God, aliens, fairies, ghosts, goblins, whatever you like. All it requires is that you propose evidence that can be tested via the scientific method.

It's not the fault of science that magic doesn't pass the scientific method.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79032
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>"you people"?
we ARE arguing with lamp posts.
Lol *looks at herself thoroughly* Not a lamppost.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79033
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes observation. as yet there is none for any god, gods or goddessses...
the initial phase of research can begin when someone has such.
Observer bias is the distortion of evidence because of the personal motives and expectations of the viewer.

You already made up your mind. You will not accept any form of evidence even if it smacked you in the face.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79034
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>He didn't even mention God in that post, he said Adam and Eve. And yes, actually we can and have used the scientific method to disprove Adam and Eve. The last major human genetic bottleneck was towards the end of the last ice age at around 10,000 years ago, world population approximately 100,000 if I recall. Humanity does not go back to 2 people and 2 people only, nor 8 people on a really big boat.

Unless you say evidence doesn't matter and God fixed it all with magic. To which we say...

Who cares?(shrug)
I don't worship Adam and Eve. I worship God. Until you can use the scientific method to disprove HIS existence, I have no reason not to believe in him. I return your shrug with a shrug of my own.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79035
Mar 6, 2013
 
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Nice try. Hey, are you the Scot who called me a c*nt? I remember you.
Sorry, that wasn't me. I'm not Scottish either.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79036
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you asking for evidence when evidence is superfluous to one whose position is Goddidit with magic? We CAN disprove certain claims, but we can't disprove invisible Jewish magic to fix everything. In which case we can make up any old BS and say it's valid because invisible Jewmagic.
It's Jewmagic now? lol What is this obsession you have with magic? Unfulfilled childhood dream? The ONLY fact in the atheist/theist argument is this: You cannot use the scientific method to prove or disprove that GOD (the existence of whom this entire argument rests upon) exists. Thus neither party (atheist or theist) can definitively tell the other party that they are wrong. All we can do is disagree. Moving on.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79037
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>I would approach them just as I would any other document from that time period: I'd realize that written documents were very unusual and were done for public reasons by those in power. I would compare what they say with the archaeological evidence and other sources from the same time. I would realize the level of knowledge of those doing the writing and the society in which they were writing. Then I would weigh the evidence for each particular event to evaluate its reliability.

This is the procedure for *all* historical documents. Context is crucial. Motivation is crucial. Societal biases are crucial.

As an example, the Iliad tells the story of the fall of Troy. For a long time it was considered to be pure legend, but then we actually found the ruins of Troy. We also have art and armor from both sides of the conflict. Some of the names are even known and agree with those in the Iliad. But, there are also descriptions of Zeus and Athena and Hera plotting about how the war at Troy would go. There are also enlargements in the story that help the story along and are clearly not true to the actual history.

So, yes, we evaluate each piece of the document and attempt to understand when, where, and why it was written and then evaluate it to see whether it is reliable.
And?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79038
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Of course we can use the scientific method to disprove things. That's what it's FOR. If one has evidence, it is subject to potential falsification. If it is not subject to potential falsification then you have no evidence.

Welcome to the world of science.
Thank you very much, Professor Smartbutt, for your words of not so much wisdom. I feel good and thoroughly edumicated. Kindly use said scientific method, then, to disprove the existence of GOD. Until you can do that, you have no right whatsoever to tell me that my beliefs are wrong. Having a differing opinion doth not make you right.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79039
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Science itself is not closed to the idea. In fact it is perfectly open to the possibility of anything you can think of - God, aliens, fairies, ghosts, goblins, whatever you like. All it requires is that you propose evidence that can be tested via the scientific method.
It's not the fault of science that magic doesn't pass the scientific method.
Response bias is the systematic tendency as a result of nonsensory factors for an observer to favor responding in a particular way. For example, the use of terms like "cult" or "goddidit"

What kind of magic have you tested? Am I missing something?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79040
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>As a kid, I hoped I'd find some.

I remember seeing an article about finding evidence of Noah's ark in the form of a piece of wood on top of some mountain that was possibly Mt. Ararat.

I was like, "Oh. Cool!"

But being a skeptic even at that early age, I did some more research. It wasn't as easy in those days without google, but eventually it became readily apparent that it was hogwash.

Naturally, I was disappointed, but eventually, after disappointment upon disappointment, I accepted that the bible (I just misspelled it "bibile". Kind of appropriate.) was a collection of fairy tales with practically no basis in reality.

That acceptance lead to a fascination with science, but also made me feel very isolated from the rest of the believing world.

I was forced by necessity to keep my skepticism and growing atheism strictly to myself just to keep the peace in a very religious and large extended family.

Life ain't easy living amidst world of delusion.
What gives you the right to call my belief in God delusional? You cannot use the scientific method to disprove his existence.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79041
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>It would be more productive.
Nice. Very nice.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79042
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>The fact that you constantly have to accuse anyone who disagrees with you an atheist makes me wonder just what it is you are so afraid of.

And you didn't take exception anything I said.
I'm not railing accusations at all. I'm simply presenting facts. The fact is you cannot use the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God so you have no right to call my belief in him wrong. Nobody accused you of anything.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79043
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes! that is an objective look at the facts.

i do not think that word means what you think it means...
Lol Princess Bride style? Nice!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79044
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>there is no evidence of the existence of god. that's just fact.
Nor can you disprove his existence using the scientific method. Also fact.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79045
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Pretty well sums it up.
Another twister of words. I love it! Present me with proof using the scientific method that God does not exist and we will talk. Until then, a believing I will go.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79046
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Seems you keep bringing up this whole proof business...
Because, friend, that's really what the entire atheist/theist argument comes down to. Neither side can use the scientific method to prove or disprove the existence of God thus neither side has the right to call the other wrong. It's just that simple.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79047
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>At least you admit your belief is just opinion and not reality.
My belief is my reality. Whether or not God truly exists has yet to be proven using the scientific method. Thus your opinion is also just that. Your opinion.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79048
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>If you believe in God, just who in the hell do you think created all of those facts and evidences?
I don't argue with that statement at all. My question in turn is this: If God did create all those facts and evidences, who the hell are you trying to disprove?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79049
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
What gives you the right to call my belief in God delusional? You cannot use the scientific method to disprove his existence.
Do you think that people who believe soap opera characters are real are sane?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79050
Mar 6, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I got no problem with theists accepting science either. Generally people who believe in God and accept science we usually just refer to as Christians. However those who prefer to deny reality for the sake of their faith we refer to as creationists. They are the ones who say such and such a science is wrong because it conflicts with their ideas of how the invisible magic Jew didit using magic. Though you may despise labels they are usually quite handy every day things, so much so that the English language relies on them.
I do enjoy a smartass. Use the scientific method to disprove the existence of my "invisible magic Jew God" and this conversation will be over. Until then, I don't need a science lesson or a lesson on the English language. Thank you all the same.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••