Prove there's a god.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372493 Oct 21, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
It does get confusing, because nothing in science is supposed to be above question, regardless of whether it is called a theory, fact, or law. Not supposed to be, but unfortunately this is not how many theories are treated. That is why the quasi-crystal issue is such a good example and why I bring it up. This scientist was actually kicked out of research groups and discredited because of his hypothesis which now appears to have been right. Now he has a nobel prize, but some still suggest that certain things in science are absolute truth.
Now I'm interested! Could you link to your discussion on quasi-crystals?

I've written much in this thread and another one on the humanity in science and how I dislike making arguments to it's authority. Science is done by humans; it has human failings.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372494 Oct 21, 2011
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution certainly fits the definition of "scientific fact".
Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
That is scientific fact.
Scar, see above :)

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372495 Oct 21, 2011
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get that?
I was assuming he was talking about the experiences that some believers attribute to spirituality. These experiences have been credited to a god, but they are a result of human physiology. When you can attribute things to a god out of ignorance, you can build a false inventory of evidence, and that's just insane. That's like saying, "I have presents under the Christmas tree, so Santa must have left them." It is far more likely, despite the lies, that the presents were not from Santa Claus. Parents lie to their children about Santa, and then about God, what are kids to think? Why must we deal with this insanity?
Hey! Why are you lying soooo much? Tide, you yourself died and were resurrected last week.

Geez, man, some people just want to argue.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372496 Oct 21, 2011
rayne111 wrote:
before we do prove there's a GOD,prove there is NO GOD at all.can you?
Ah...hey...you missed it. The proof against God happened a few hundred pages back. We are just pointlessly arguing now.
.
Sorry about God.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372497 Oct 21, 2011
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Make sure he's worth your time. Remember the poster called Just a Thought or Two? This is basically the same character.
No, sorry, must have missed it. I don't know, he seems to be discussing mostly science, and trying to clarify his position. I haven't read all his arguments, but, at least to me, they haven't been anything less then good debate.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372498 Oct 21, 2011
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Make sure he's worth your time. Remember the poster called Just a Thought or Two? This is basically the same character.
Hey! I liked your last comment :)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#372499 Oct 21, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I should also point out you are referring now to micro evolution rather than macro-evolution
Ahh, moving the goal post.

But in trying to move that goal post you conceded that evolution is a fact.

Well done.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372500 Oct 21, 2011
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, moving the goal post.
But in trying to move that goal post you conceded that evolution is a fact.
Well done.
Ah. The micro/macro thing is a worrisome comment. Woops! Stealth Christian.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372501 Oct 21, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
What I've noticed is that there are some atheists who seek out the religious so as to argue with them. They will throw out a bunch of psuedo-scientific nonsense claiming science somehow disproves the existance of a god because, I don't know, I guess it makes you feel superior. They also tend to get whiny when they run into someone who is willing to debate them on scientific grounds. Their response to that, then, is to dismiss the person for perceived religious beliefs rather than address what was actually said.
It has always been interesting for me, because if I remain mute on my beliefs, atheists almost always tend to attack religious arguments I didn't make.
I am someone with a science degree, who makes a living in a science field, and yet am told repeatedly about how much I hate science and how little I understand science by people who have glaring errors in their understanding of what science is and does. It is always interesting to hear someone tell me I don't understand science, have such a biased view that I cannot understand science, and yet cannot tell me one thing I have said incorrect regarding science. So, yes, I keep my personal beliefs to myself. Call it an experiment if you like. Interestingly, when dealing with atheists who seek out the religious, the results are always the same.
It has always seemed interesting to me that some people choose to identify themselves by what they don't believe. It is also interesting to me that people who claim to have no religious beliefs will fervently and fanatically go after others in an attempt to spread that lack of belief. No one will seem to give me straight answers on these topics.
Nah, we can disprove religions. Spiritual experiences in humans are adaptive. They help humans form larger social networks and were important in the past, when people lived in kin-centered bands.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#372502 Oct 21, 2011
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>Hey! Why are you lying soooo much? Tide, you yourself died and were resurrected last week.

Geez, man, some people just want to argue.
No they don't.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#372503 Oct 21, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, evolution being defined is what gave it a precise definition. Whether or not it is considered fact is another matter.
And that matter has to do with evolution being a fact. You're just trying to avoid that.

Science doesn't have a problem with evolution. Science uses it daily, and by a majority consensus, gave the definitions based on the observations of the fact that evolution occurs.

Science admits it is a fact, however, your refusal to accept it as a fact or inability to understand it is a fact doesn't change that at all.

Evolution is also part of a theory(theories contain facts) and that is a fact as well.

I've explained, gave a definition that you tried to avoid by moving the goal post and also provided a couple of links explaining in detail why it is a fact. And a theory that contains the fact of evolution.

So far all you've offered is an opinion. A hollow statement.

You've "strongly asserted" evolution isn't a fact. And that's all you've done.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#372504 Oct 21, 2011
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Its accepted as truth but no truth in science can ever be 100%
That all he is saying, and that is a fact.
The reason leaves open the possibility of dynamic new discovery.
All science is based that way , it would be in error if it did now
allow new understanding.
So scientists can be 99.9% positive of a theory. that leaves the theory open to discovery.
Sure, that's always a component of science. That is why science is successful. But he's not stated that within the particular conversation.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372505 Oct 21, 2011
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't.
Oh! Sorry...sorry...I guess I was wrong. I didn't mean to be. Don't hit me! Don't hit me!!!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372506 Oct 21, 2011
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
And that matter has to do with evolution being a fact. You're just trying to avoid that.
Science doesn't have a problem with evolution. Science uses it daily, and by a majority consensus, gave the definitions based on the observations of the fact that evolution occurs.
Science admits it is a fact, however, your refusal to accept it as a fact or inability to understand it is a fact doesn't change that at all.
Evolution is also part of a theory(theories contain facts) and that is a fact as well.
I've explained, gave a definition that you tried to avoid by moving the goal post and also provided a couple of links explaining in detail why it is a fact. And a theory that contains the fact of evolution.
So far all you've offered is an opinion. A hollow statement.
You've "strongly asserted" evolution isn't a fact. And that's all you've done.
You are correct. Everything about evolution is a fact. We are just working out the details now, because our math isn't complicated enough to describe it.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#372507 Oct 21, 2011
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct. Everything about evolution is a fact. We are just working out the details now, because our math isn't complicated enough to describe it.
Don't use your inadequate math as an excuse, infidel!

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#372508 Oct 21, 2011
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't.
Yes they do!

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#372509 Oct 21, 2011
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Scar, see above :)
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...
I agree with both Bald in his commentary that you pointed out(I assume)

Facts within science may change based on new or better information.

Thats an almost immutable fact within science at large. Possibly the one absolute fact of science. And its strength.

His blanket statement that evolution isn't a scientific fact is inaccurate, however, and he's never stated in our conversation that simple enough caveat; "Facts within science may change based on new, more complete or more accurate information"

If that'd been said I would agree.

I also agree with your observation that since science and the experiments, observations etc. involved in science are performed by humans, it is fallible. Humans do make mistakes. Repeated observation and verification helps to lessen that happening or being so commonplace as to make science useless. Fortunately.

(the link you supplied just took me to the top stories page)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#372510 Oct 21, 2011
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah. The micro/macro thing is a worrisome comment. Woops! Stealth Christian.
Mmhmmm.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#372511 Oct 21, 2011
The first sentence in post #372509(just above) should read...

"I agree with Bald in his commentary(...)"

Instead of...

"I agree with both Bald in his commentary(...)"

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#372512 Oct 21, 2011
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with both Bald in his commentary that you pointed out(I assume)
Facts within science may change based on new or better information.
Thats an almost immutable fact within science at large. Possibly the one absolute fact of science. And its strength.
His blanket statement that evolution isn't a scientific fact is inaccurate, however, and he's never stated in our conversation that simple enough caveat; "Facts within science may change based on new, more complete or more accurate information"
If that'd been said I would agree.
I also agree with your observation that since science and the experiments, observations etc. involved in science are performed by humans, it is fallible. Humans do make mistakes. Repeated observation and verification helps to lessen that happening or being so commonplace as to make science useless. Fortunately.
(the link you supplied just took me to the top stories page)
Huh, how strange. Well, he said that the texts he read never called evolution a fact. So I supplied him with one. I wrote:

"This quote is what I'm reading right now in my list of evo books to go through. I see this a fair amount, but it's not omnipresent:

"The variations we see in the outcome of the evolutionary process are evidence that evolution as a process is a fact. It is a process in which we are immersed just as much as the Streptococcus bacter we discussed earlier. Countless numbers of fossils in museums all over the world, as well as the variation in the roses in a garden, are examples of the process of evolution. Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact."

Trevathan, Smith and McKenana, 2008. "Evolutionary Medicine and Health: New Perspectives." Oxford University Press.

I'm a PhD student in evolutionary anthropology, going through my reading lists.

You are completely correct - new evidence changes how the process of evolution is understood. But science is simply working out the details now. The basics of evolution - natural selection, genetic drift, the founder effect, etc., etc., won't change. The mathematical models we have for them will become more and more precise over time, but the basics are all worked out."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 2 min AussieBobby 44,247
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 2 min Johnny 4,029
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 2 min Rosa_Winkel 36,682
Mexicunn men in America r punk zza beechizz!! 18 min Johnny 12
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 21 min Steve III 640,789
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 43 min DebraE 104,529
How come girls don't like to date east indian g... (Dec '09) 1 hr Anjali 166
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr AussieBobby 280,829
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Steve III 618,239
More from around the web