Prove there's a god.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621132 May 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
Circumcision
I guess I agree that babies should be left alone regarding that. But me personally; I'm glad I got it cut off. It's too weird to have that, IMO. Still I guess it would be better to wait and let the man as an adult make that decision for himself.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621133 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
Tired of this. Thanks for the conversation, but we've been going in circles for a while now. My only point is that if you require a mechanism for consciousness from non-consciousness before we can infer meaning from the apparent brain/thought connection, you might as well demand a similar mechanism for everything else for which we have no explanation, therefore ruling out any current observations. That, to me, makes no sense. It's technically true, but I think it's prudent to go with what we have rather than what we might have someday.
Yea me too. We've only been going in circles because you refuse to admit that science cannot make a statement such that consciousness is more likely a molecular phenomenon than a quantum one. It's a fact yet you insist it isn't. And if you say you do not insist on that, then there is no argument at all here. Like you're just playing word games.

You keep saying it is "prudent to go with what we have" yet we have nothing on a mechanism for consciousness. All we have is association of molecules. So hopefully this merry go round is over, you can think what you want. You're not the only one that doesn't understand the point I am making, even though it is pretty simple to understand.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621134 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
And how, pray tell, did you arrive at this conclusion about me? I assure you, I am not "conceptualizing evolution as having a "goal" or a specific form it is striving towards." That's an absurd assumption on your part. <shakes head> Sorry Timn, you definitely have that wrong.
Sorry, then, but that's what it sounded like. It seems to me that you have trouble accepting that everything is a transitional fossil because you want to be able to point to one specific species as being "in between" ape and man (as if man is the 'endpoint'), when that's not how it works. Everything is constantly transitioning to something else. Sorry that I got the wrong impression.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621135 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you know, problem with that is that everyone has a different opinion of "proper" or perfect design. How would you ever get your balls played with then?:)
And more importantly, why would you assume that God would make something "perfect" anyway? Maybe this is just the way it is meant to be, for whatever reason it is meant to be?
I don't know, maybe a retractable titanium shell around our special parts? That would do just fine. Having the most sensitive part of our body jutting out from the front doesn't make much sense.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621136 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Yea me too. We've only been going in circles because you refuse to admit that science cannot make a statement such that consciousness is more likely a molecular phenomenon than a quantum one. It's a fact yet you insist it isn't. And if you say you do not insist on that, then there is no argument at all here. Like you're just playing word games.
You keep saying it is "prudent to go with what we have" yet we have nothing on a mechanism for consciousness. All we have is association of molecules. So hopefully this merry go round is over, you can think what you want. You're not the only one that doesn't understand the point I am making, even though it is pretty simple to understand.
I understand the point you are trying to make, and I do not agree with it. I have tried to explain my position with the gravity analogy I kept referring to, which prompted you to say "well, we really can't say mass has anything to do with gravity since we don't know it's mechanism."

That's lunacy. Gravity exists where there is mass. Thought exists where there is brain. It might be wrong to assume they have anything to do with each other, but it certainly seems they are related. That is "what we have."

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621137 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
The hardware pretty clearly is not turned off while we sleep. The brain is very active at all stages of sleep. And yes, there kind of is a "half ass mode" that occurs during sleep. The brain functions on different wavelengths.
So be it. Why then do we experience a mode where there is no memory? Something must be "shut off". Obviously the sleep state is different from the wake state. Still, my explanation for why we 'have no memory of sleep but retain the sense of being in the present' is very plausible. And still neither of us can say our belief is more plausible than the other.
I think dreaming supports my position anyway - that the brain can create experience out of whole cloth with no corresponding "reality" to draw from seems a pretty clear indicator that the brain is responsible for thought.
Again, you can *believe* what you want but don't say that science can ever make a statement that your belief is more likely than consciousness from a quantum source.

This provides no evidence that the brain is or isn't a hardware device that is a "medium" for consciousness.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621138 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Yea me too. We've only been going in circles because you refuse to admit that science cannot make a statement such that consciousness is more likely a molecular phenomenon than a quantum one. It's a fact yet you insist it isn't. And if you say you do not insist on that, then there is no argument at all here. Like you're just playing word games.
You keep saying it is "prudent to go with what we have" yet we have nothing on a mechanism for consciousness. All we have is association of molecules. So hopefully this merry go round is over, you can think what you want. You're not the only one that doesn't understand the point I am making, even though it is pretty simple to understand.
Ahaha. I'm really starting to think you're right that someone follows you around giving you bad judgeits. I've never seen someone get so many negatives so fast. I mean, I don't agree with you, but there are certainly more offensive posters than you.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#621139 May 3, 2013
Looks like someone at topix arranged for me to get instant negative judicons. No one could have done it that fast. What a bunch of immature BS. Whatever. Like it matters anyway.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#621140 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What "kind" are trilobites?
Trilobites are some of the earliest "kinds" of sea crustaceans and other hard-shelled water creatures.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

#621141 May 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the crocoduck would falsify most of the theory of evolution, not support it.
Crocoduck?! Hell naw, hahaha!!!!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621143 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
Looks like someone at topix arranged for me to get instant negative judicons. No one could have done it that fast. What a bunch of immature BS. Whatever. Like it matters anyway.
Woah there. Reign it in there cowboy.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621144 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't say it removes it completely, I said that is it's purpose, and it does a very good job of keeping people honest.
Why would they admit god created the world? There is no evidence for it. And again, why do you set up religion so as to be diametrically opposed to science? If we accept a creator, does that mean we have to stop searching for knowledge? That shows how you think. God is a free pass for you to turn off your brain.
Did you really link to glenn beck's site? After a cursory examination of the "challenge," it appears this guy wants someone to prove creation didn't happen. As we all (should) know, it is impossible to prove a negative. Stop being stupid. You fell for a publicity stunt.
Just answer the question, and stop running from it...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621145 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>So be it. Why then do we experience a mode where there is no memory? Something must be "shut off". Obviously the sleep state is different from the wake state. Still, my explanation for why we 'have no memory of sleep but retain the sense of being in the present' is very plausible. And still neither of us can say our belief is more plausible than the other.
<quoted text>Again, you can *believe* what you want but don't say that science can ever make a statement that your belief is more likely than consciousness from a quantum source.
This provides no evidence that the brain is or isn't a hardware device that is a "medium" for consciousness.
I suppose it's because the parts of the brain required for our sense of being are less active while sleeping. If consciousness were ethereal, why would it "shut off" during sleep, and why would it return in sporadic, sometimes inexplicable forms during dreams? I've never claimed to know exactly how our sense of being comes from the brain, just that it appears to do so.

Ok. To prove that the brain is *not* a medium for some magical consciousness is not possible.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621146 May 3, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just answer the question, and stop running from it...
I didn't run from anything. Science would continue as normal if the existence of a creator was ackowledged, which is what I implied in my previous post. Why do you propose that knowledge becomes meaningless in the face of a creator? Is that really how you think?

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#621147 May 3, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you Aura, for making my point...EVERYTHING is not a transitional fossil.
Good point.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621148 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't say it removes it completely, I said that is it's purpose, and it does a very good job of keeping people honest.
Why would they admit god created the world? There is no evidence for it. And again, why do you set up religion so as to be diametrically opposed to science? If we accept a creator, does that mean we have to stop searching for knowledge?
And you ask such a STUPID question as for why i am opposed to science!! You just removed ALL DOUBT i had for you having any intelligence.

And u say science doesnt have a BIAS...! LOL..


The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ...(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists)... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[31] pseudoscience,[32][33] or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[36] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent. In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[38]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[26]

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[39][40][41][42] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[25]

The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.[43][44]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."[45]

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621149 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, then, but that's what it sounded like. It seems to me that you have trouble accepting that everything is a transitional fossil because you want to be able to point to one specific species as being "in between" ape and man (as if man is the 'endpoint'), when that's not how it works. Everything is constantly transitioning to something else. Sorry that I got the wrong impression.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, then, but that's what it sounded like. It seems to me that you have trouble accepting that everything is a transitional fossil because you want to be able to point to one specific species as being "in between" ape and man (as if man is the 'endpoint'), when that's not how it works. Everything is constantly transitioning to something else. Sorry that I got the wrong impression.
No need for apologies. I just simply couldn't understand how you came to that conclusion. I don't have trouble accepting that change is constant in all living things. When I pointed out that EVERYTHING is not a transitional fossil...it was somewhat of a joke...a play on words, because inanimate objects are not fossils nor will they ever be...again...I like to keep things a little on the lighter side if I can.

As for wanting to be able "to point to one specific species as being "in between" ape and man as if man is the 'endpoint'", I do believe man is the endpoint. Will we change over time. Of course we will. Do I believe man will, over time, evolve into some kind of alien -like super intelligent being or something completely different than we are now? No, I don't. To say we are the end-product to date, of a chimp, basically, is to say we evolved from a non-speaking, hairy, crawling on all fours primate that is still in existence today. If that transition had occurred, why are their still apes and chimps? Why are we training them to speak sign language and do other tasks that are more human? Why aren't they evolving on their own still? If change and transition occurred that slowly over time, you would not have ape then man. There would have to be a hybrid version of the two at some point in time and we don't see that. Same goes for bird to mammal, mammal to fish. At some point there would have to be fins and legs, wings and legs on a fossil. I realize, science has this big idea that whales are a perfect example because they have vestigial hind legs. Personally, I find this hilarious. Tonsils and adenoids were thought for years to be vestigial organs in humans, but wow...guess what, we finally figured out they have a purpose. Tonsils and adenoids are strategically located near the entrance to the breathing passages where they can catch incoming infections. They 'sample" bacteria and viruses and can become infected themselves. It is thought that they then help form antibodies to those "germs" as part of the body's immune system to resist and fight future infections. Just because we don't know the purpose for hind legs in whales doesn't mean they must have once been weight bearing limbs and that whales actually roamed the earth. It amazes me how we assume fossils of who knows what are the transitional fossil link that proves a whale once walked. What will science do of they ever figure out what those little hind legs are actually used for....the way they figured out the purpose of the tonsils? The thing is Timn...I don't have to have an answer for everything. I'm okay with the idea that there is much to learn and I don't feel the need to make things fit into my little creationist world, unlike the way science and many evolutionists do.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#621150 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Yea me too. We've only been going in circles because you refuse to admit that science cannot make a statement such that consciousness is more likely a molecular phenomenon than a quantum one. It's a fact yet you insist it isn't. And if you say you do not insist on that, then there is no argument at all here. Like you're just playing word games.
You keep saying it is "prudent to go with what we have" yet we have nothing on a mechanism for consciousness. All we have is association of molecules. So hopefully this merry go round is over, you can think what you want. You're not the only one that doesn't understand the point I am making, even though it is pretty simple to understand.
That's only because you don't have a GD clue what the hell you are talking about.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#621151 May 3, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>So be it. Why then do we experience a mode where there is no memory? Something must be "shut off". Obviously the sleep state is different from the wake state. Still, my explanation for why we 'have no memory of sleep but retain the sense of being in the present' is very plausible. And still neither of us can say our belief is more plausible than the other.
<quoted text>Again, you can *believe* what you want but don't say that science can ever make a statement that your belief is more likely than consciousness from a quantum source.
This provides no evidence that the brain is or isn't a hardware device that is a "medium" for consciousness.
Again because you have no clue you are qualified to say. pfft.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621152 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't say it removes it completely, I said that is it's purpose, and it does a very good job of keeping people honest.
Why would they admit god created the world? There is no evidence for it. And again, why do you set up religion so as to be diametrically opposed to science? If we accept a creator, does that mean we have to stop searching for knowledge?
And you say Science has NO BIAS, and ask why i set up religion to be diametrically opposed to science!!

No wonder you couldnt answer my question, you would have to be honest to do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...


The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ...(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists). give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[31] pseudoscience, or junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[25]

The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Hukt on Fonix 56,257
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 min NACKED TRUTH 44,993
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 34 min Lost In Transition 182,971
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 35 min Robert F 650,625
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 43 min Sam Hall 445,933
White gay slaves who like black masters (Nov '14) 1 hr blackdick 5
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 1 hr Joe Fortuna 4,861
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) Thu kobechi3 71
More from around the web