Notices
Results 1 to 81 of 81

Thread: People say they believe in god

  1. #1 People say they believe in god 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    12
    I don't believe in god and im going to use what IF god existed in this paragraph just to say what I believe.


    People say they believe in god but they don't. I don't believe in god and the fact that your mommy or your daddy told you that god is the creator of everything doesn't mean you need to believe in him. All this stuff is not proven and people say it is, How I tel, you this question who created god or how did he made himself. I got a friend who doesn't believe in god but he says he does because his family is religious and they have heard them say that the ones who don't believe in god are from the devil and must be killed. He is afraid of telling the people and his family about this but he told me because he knew I was a safe responder and I didint judge him. Everybody has his own beliefs he who chooses not to believe in god is okay he who chooses to believe in god is okay. See people choose god over they're loved ones and thats wrong people will kill for god and what does god do he sits around looking at us and what does he do. Once if you go to heaven what do you do up there. I'm starting to think god made us for his entertainment.


    And like I said I used IF god existed in this paragraph to say If he existed what would he really be.


    Im in 7th grade
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    religion isn't about proof


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    12
    I'm not saying its about proof what im trying to say is that its just like another story made up to give meaning to life.
    Im in 7th grade
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    life doesn't have an ultimate meaning - get used to it
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    12
    Thats what im trying to say life isn't or doesn't necessarily has to have a meaning.
    Im in 7th grade
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore Nanobrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Texas, US
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Gablo51
    I got a friend who doesn't believe in god but he says he does...
    I am confused. Does your friend believe in God or does he not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: People say they believe in god 
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Gablo51
    I don't believe in god and im going to use what IF god existed in this paragraph just to say what I believe.


    People say they believe in god but they don't. I don't believe in god and the fact that your mommy or your daddy told you that god is the creator of everything doesn't mean you need to believe in him. All this stuff is not proven and people say it is, How I tel, you this question who created god or how did he made himself. I got a friend who doesn't believe in god but he says he does because his family is religious and they have heard them say that the ones who don't believe in god are from the devil and must be killed. He is afraid of telling the people and his family about this but he told me because he knew I was a safe responder and I didint judge him. Everybody has his own beliefs he who chooses not to believe in god is okay he who chooses to believe in god is okay. See people choose god over they're loved ones and thats wrong people will kill for god and what does god do he sits around looking at us and what does he do. Once if you go to heaven what do you do up there. I'm starting to think god made us for his entertainment.


    And like I said I used IF god existed in this paragraph to say If he existed what would he really be.
    so you dont believe in God.
    in this paragraph i will try to prove you scientifically that God exists.
    At first if you see something made by man, whome will you ask about it?
    of course the person produced that.
    Now we call God to the one who created this universe and everything in this universe and who sustains the universe. So God will be knowing the best about the universe and everything in that. first let me ask you how did our universe created? Yeah! its the big bang, we came to know about it only today. but it was written 1400 years ago in Quran.
    Is moon having its own light or reflected light? Reflected light, we came to know about very later with science. But it is there in Quran 1400 years ago.
    in which shape is the embryo inside the womb? with todays science with help of powerful microscopes we came to know about it. It is there in Quran 1400 years ago. when did we came to know about the shapes of the earth. it is there 1400 years ago in the Quran.
    we know that our finger print is unique for every body. But it is mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago.
    there is a barrier between the two sea. we came to know abut it only today. it is there in Quran 1400 years ago. these are few of many
    scientific facts is Quran. In bibles also there are some scientific facts.

    If you say that Quran is words of a man. than lets apply the theory of probability.
    if it is by a chance the probability of getting all the scientific facts correct will be surely less than 1/10^-100. today scientists say that if the probability of any thing happening is less than 1/10^-50, it is impossible to happen. For a human being writing a book of that much text as in Quran without any mistake scientifically, grammatically.... is impossible.
    So whose words are in the Quran?
    its the God's word. So God exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    basim wrote:
    in this paragraph i will try to prove you scientifically that God exists.
    Do you know what the word 'scientifically' means?
    People can be both ignorant and arrogant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    quoting the infallibility of a sacred text is not scientific proof
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    i thought you would think of the scientific facts in the words of God.
    ok then let me think of a way that you may feel scientific.
    God exists because we exist. How can we be in existance if there in no creator.
    God created me when I had nothing to call I, and there was no one to call I to me.
    God exists because this universe exist.
    isnt that scientific enough to believe in God's existance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    that is only true if you accept the existence of god

    as an atheist, i don't - hence your "words of god" are to me words written by fallible men with the knowledge and cultural background of their time

    + i'm perfectly ok with the concept of existence without a creator, so i don't feel the need to postulate one
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: People say they believe in god 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Gablo51
    I don't believe in god and im going to use what IF god existed in this paragraph just to say what I believe.


    People say they believe in god but they don't. I don't believe in god and the fact that your mommy or your daddy told you that god is the creator of everything doesn't mean you need to believe in him.
    All this stuff is not proven and people say it is
    ,
    so you have evidence that god doesn't exist?
    How I tel, you this question who created god or how did he made himself.
    the basic understanding of religion is that there is a substance that is not ephemeral, the primary one being god - kind of like asking if water exists how come you can't set it on fire (water, by definition, is not flammable, much like god is defined as being causeless)
    I got a friend who doesn't believe in god but he says he does because his family is religious and they have heard them say that the ones who don't believe in god are from the devil and must be killed.
    so he pretends to believe
    He is afraid of telling the people and his family about this but he told me because he knew I was a safe responder and I didint judge him. Everybody has his own beliefs he who chooses not to believe in god is okay he who chooses to believe in god is okay. See people choose god over they're loved ones and thats wrong people will kill for god and what does god do he sits around looking at us and what does he do. Once if you go to heaven what do you do up there. I'm starting to think god made us for his entertainment.

    And like I said I used IF god existed in this paragraph to say If he existed what would he really be.[/quote]

    it would be difficult to comprehend how god could exist without bearing a social influence, since even one's favorite football team has been seen to be a cause of disunity and violence
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    that is only true if you accept the existence of god

    as an atheist, i don't - hence your "words of god" are to me words written by fallible men with the knowledge and cultural background of their time

    + i'm perfectly ok with the concept of existence without a creator, so i don't feel the need to postulate one
    can you prove that you are created without a god?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Know about sperm and egg?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    basim, there is no scientific knowledge or proof of gods existence in the koran, bible or any other ancient text other then what was known at the time.
    God exists because we exist. How can we be in existance if there in no creator.
    How can a creator exist if there is no creator creator, and on and on and on..........
    So God will be knowing the best about the universe and everything in that. first let me ask you how did our universe created? Yeah! its the big bang, we came to know about it only today. but it was written 1400 years ago in Quran.
    LOL, please tell me what was written in the koran about the big bang.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    that is only true if you accept the existence of god

    as an atheist, i don't - hence your "words of god" are to me words written by fallible men with the knowledge and cultural background of their time

    + i'm perfectly ok with the concept of existence without a creator, so i don't feel the need to postulate one
    can you prove that you are created without a god?
    no, but then again i'm ok with that

    can you prove to my satisfaction in a scientifically rigourous way that you were created by a god ? if you can then you're doing better than many great minds before you - kant made a real pig's ear of it, his so-called "proofs" being full of contradictions and circular reasoning
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Know about sperm and egg?
    Its also known how having a sperm and egg is necessary yet not sufficient to cause life (after all, both contraception and IV therapy is not seen to be successful in all circumstances)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    no, but then again i'm ok with that

    can you prove to my satisfaction in a scientifically rigourous way that you were created by a god ? if you can then you're doing better than many great minds before you - kant made a real pig's ear of it, his so-called "proofs" being full of contradictions and circular reasoning
    i cant remember the time when i was not there. I can see things with my eye. That i would have been created by a wise source, who knows everything. I can hear sounds with my ears. I can smell with my nose, feel touch with my hands and taste with my tongue and talk. I didnt knew that i was using electromagnetic radiation to see things. I hear things which i cant taste and touch. I touch things which i cant hear.... So i am sure there are things which i cant taste, touch, smell, hear and see. All these senses by which i can understand the nature cant be produced by a creature neither by a chance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    You are mistaken. Study more, especially Evolution theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    All these senses by which i can understand the nature cant be produced by a creature neither by a chance.
    i'm with prasit on this one - anyone with a smattering of knowledge of evolution knows that divine intervention is unnecessary to explain the senses

    + natural selection is not a random event : mutation may be random, but survival of an individual / species is directed by selection which is not random
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    All these senses by which i can understand the nature cant be produced by a creature neither by a chance.
    i'm with prasit on this one - anyone with a smattering of knowledge of evolution knows that divine intervention is unnecessary to explain the senses

    + natural selection is not a random event : mutation may be random, but survival of an individual / species is directed by selection which is not random
    My senses are not developed slowly, one by one. they all are created at once. my eye would not work if different parts of my eve is developed one by one. Why my eyes are detecting electromagnetic radiations of a certain range. Why my ears are developed to hear sounds of certain frequency.
    am i developed with a single unit of molecule with one stage by another.
    That theory of evolution says we are created initially with a single unit, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i'm logging off from this conversation - we're obviously on totally different wavelengths + i hate going around in circles ad infinitum
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    one last parting shot : have a look at this

    i may also point out that greater scientists than i such as Steve Jones, Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould have already covered the subject of the evolution of the eye in great detail and shown that the eye has not only evolved once but at least 40 times in different types of animal

    that is FACT and your incredulity in the matter doesn't change the truth of it one iota
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    All these senses by which i can understand the nature cant be produced by a creature neither by a chance.
    i'm with prasit on this one - anyone with a smattering of knowledge of evolution knows that divine intervention is unnecessary to explain the senses
    there have been peer reviewed papers that establish how one can take matter that is bereft of life and turn it into matter that displays the symptoms of life (ie functioning senses)?

    + natural selection is not a random event : mutation may be random, but survival of an individual / species is directed by selection which is not random
    who or what does the selecting and is that thing random?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    punarmusiko wrote:
    who or what does the selecting and is that thing random?
    Tigers help selecting the fast-running horses by eating the slow-running ones.
    It does not look random to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    there have been peer reviewed papers that establish how one can take matter that is bereft of life and turn it into matter that displays the symptoms of life (ie functioning senses)?
    that's not what i'm talking about at all - i'm talking about organisms without eyes gradually developing them through geologic time
    as far as i'm aware basim stated that something like the eye had to appear fully formed from nothing in one go, which is blatant nonsense

    after all, there is still a whole continuum in living organisms going from light-sensitive spots to fully formed eyes, showing the various stages an organism could have gone through to get from a less sophisticated eye to a more sophisticated one
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    punarmusiko wrote:
    who or what does the selecting and is that thing random?
    Tigers help selecting the fast-running horses by eating the slow-running ones.
    It does not look random to me.
    so who or what selects the tigers?
    and who or what selects that which selects the tigers?
    and who or what selects that which selects that which selects the tigers?
    etc etc

    so I ask you again, is this thing random?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    there have been peer reviewed papers that establish how one can take matter that is bereft of life and turn it into matter that displays the symptoms of life (ie functioning senses)?
    that's not what i'm talking about at all - i'm talking about organisms without eyes gradually developing them through geologic time
    as far as i'm aware basim stated that something like the eye had to appear fully formed from nothing in one go, which is blatant nonsense

    after all, there is still a whole continuum in living organisms going from light-sensitive spots to fully formed eyes, showing the various stages an organism could have gone through to get from a less sophisticated eye to a more sophisticated one
    it still remains an idea
    the standard for scientific fact is that it must be empirically verified, is it not?
    are there peer reviewed papers that establish how one can take an organism situated somewhere in the strata of eye development and bring it up a few rungs on the ladder?

    Or are so called scientists jumping the gun when they say "we know this is a fact but we just don't know how or where it happens"??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    punarmusiko wrote:
    so who or what selects the tigers?
    The medium-speed horses help select the fast-running tigers by outrunning the slow-running tigers.

    The whole concept is explained well in any elementary text on Evolution Theory. If you don't believe in the theory please state why.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    punarmusiko wrote:
    so who or what selects the tigers?
    The medium-speed horses help select the fast-running tigers by outrunning the slow-running tigers.
    and who or what selects the medium speed horses?
    and who or what selects what selects medium horses?
    and who or what selects what selects what selects medium horses?
    etc etc


    The whole concept is explained well in any elementary text on Evolution Theory. If you don't believe in the theory please state why.
    I don't have a problem with evolution theory, except when it attempts to encroach on the word 'fact'.
    at the moment however we are examining your statement that natural selection is not random ...[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    ์์natural selection is not random, the same way that the material properties are not random. They are underlying natural law that govern them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    ์์natural selection is not random, the same way that the material properties are not random. They are underlying natural law that govern them.
    and what are the underlying natural laws that govern natural selection - are there any peer reviewed papers elaborating on something like the rest mass of a proton in relation to why a mother crocodile looks after her babies in jaws that can snap a buffalo's bone?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Because the mother crocodile who has tendency to snap her babies with her jaws do not have heirs to take up this baby-eating habit.

    Underlying laws are, inheritance of characteristics, competing for limited resources, struggle for existence, survival of the fittest.

    You can keep on asking and I can keep on replying, but it will be a waste of my time. State your objection, your rationale and we can use time more wisely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Or are so called scientists jumping the gun when they say "we know this is a fact but we just don't know how or where it happens"??
    if you want some "fact" stating that something happened in Croydon on the 5th of April 2000 at 3.15pm science won't provide you with it

    still, something can be accepted as factual since, given the evidence, it would perverse to withhold acceptance

    please remember that in science there is never a final statement about fact or truth, only provisional acceptance of a statement as true under the present conditions - a bit like "proven beyond reasonable doubt" in a court case, it doesn't mean that the case can't be reopened should new facts come to light that throw doubt on the original verdict

    as for the basic statements making up the foundations of the theory of natural selection :

    1. populations vary
    2. this variation is inherited by the offspring
    3. more offspring is born than can possibly survive into the next generation
    4. the variability of a population decides which of the offspring survives the challenges of its surroundings
    5. the same variability decides which of the offspring that survives can find a mate and create offspring
    6. changes in the environment (both climate and other organisms) cause populations to change their character over time
    7. when populations of one species get separated and drift apart to the extent that, when reunited, they can or do no longer interbreed, two species have arisen where previously there was only one
    8. populations that can no longer interbreed are free to drift further apart from one another
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Because the mother crocodile who has tendency to snap her babies with her jaws do not have heirs to take up this baby-eating habit.

    and how do you define this law in qualitative terms (as you previously hinted - natural selection is not random, the same way that the material properties are not random. They are underlying natural law that govern them)

    Underlying laws are, inheritance of characteristics, competing for limited resources, struggle for existence, survival of the fittest.



    You can keep on asking and I can keep on replying, but it will be a waste of my time. State your objection, your rationale and we can use time more wisely.
    Basically - you state that natural selection is not random - I find this intriguing since in an atheist world view there is no scope for a greater consciousness guiding the affairs of the universe - sure you can go on and on saying (or suggesting) A is caused by B and B is caused by C, but until science can approach something similar to a unified field theory (determining the nature of that which determines the nature for everything) there is no scope for accepting that the universe is not random (ironically, randomness being an understanding which lands itself in severe philosophical difficulty)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    Or are so called scientists jumping the gun when they say "we know this is a fact but we just don't know how or where it happens"??
    if you want some "fact" stating that something happened in Croydon on the 5th of April 2000 at 3.15pm science won't provide you with it

    still, something can be accepted as factual since, given the evidence, it would perverse to withhold acceptance

    please remember that in science there is never a final statement about fact or truth, only provisional acceptance of a statement as true under the present conditions - a bit like "proven beyond reasonable doubt" in a court case, it doesn't mean that the case can't be reopened should new facts come to light that throw doubt on the original verdict
    hence there is a difference in the credibility of that science which is involved in say automobile manufacture and that science which is involved in advocating evolution - one is factual by the power of empiricism and the other is theoretical by dint of rationalism (which is dependent on human logic)
    either way, it is a difficult prospect to determine the nature of that which is beyond our capacity for direct perception or logic ....
    as for the basic statements making up the foundations of the theory of natural selection :
    its not so much an issue about natural selection, which can be observed easily enough, but an issue about the grounds that one can accept natural selection as sufficient to take evolution beyond teh scope of theory[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Natural selection is as random as the craps table in a gambling casino. It favours the house, but not perfectly. Over time, however, the odds always bear out. The only unprofitable casinos are the ones that don't have enough customers.

    The rules that govern it are the basic laws of strategy. Bad strategies sometimes succeed, but usually fail. The crocidile that eats all of its offspring probably won't have any surviving descendents, but it might under fortunate enough circumstances fail to eat one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Natural selection is as random as the craps table in a gambling casino. It favours the house, but not perfectly. Over time, however, the odds always bear out. The only unprofitable casinos are the ones that don't have enough customers.

    The rules that govern it are the basic laws of strategy. Bad strategies sometimes succeed, but usually fail. The crocidile that eats all of its offspring probably won't have any surviving descendents, but it might under fortunate enough circumstances fail to eat one.
    then the cause of the craps game is the playing cards and the rules that govern the ebb and flow of money (hence strategy becomes possible) - in other words when you try to define a "system" as the cause of itself you land into difficulties as to how a strategy could develop the ingredients of the system (of course you could always say that material nature is eternal, but that leads to further difficulties)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    its not so much an issue about natural selection, which can be observed easily enough, but an issue about the grounds that one can accept natural selection as sufficient to take evolution beyond the scope of theory
    but there is real-life evidence in real-time that natural selection leads to changed characteristics ! observations on Darwin's finches in the Galapagos islands, experiments imitating real-life events on sticklebacks and guppies etc. etc.

    it's no longer the case that evolution happens elsewhere, it is an observed fact ! talk to any biologist and they'll tell that evolution is the fact, natural selection the theory to attempt to explain the fact of evolution
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    its not so much an issue about natural selection, which can be observed easily enough, but an issue about the grounds that one can accept natural selection as sufficient to take evolution beyond the scope of theory
    but there is real-life evidence in real-time that natural selection leads to changed characteristics ! observations on Darwin's finches in the Galapagos islands, experiments imitating real-life events on sticklebacks and guppies etc. etc.

    it's no longer the case that evolution happens elsewhere, it is an observed fact ! talk to any biologist and they'll tell that evolution is the fact, natural selection the theory to attempt to explain the fact of evolution
    there is evidence for speciation

    there is no evidence for movement between the species

    Is it logical to say

    A x time = A1
    B x time = B2
    hence A1 = B


    As a side note, on the topic of biologists, Professor Lewis Wolpert, accomplished biologist at London's University College, writes ("The Unnatural Nature of science") that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. However at the beginning of the previous century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
    Today things are quite different, and the stalwarts of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    punarmusiko wrote:
    there is no evidence for movement between the species
    so what?

    the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
    so what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    punarmusiko wrote:
    there is no evidence for movement between the species
    so what?
    then there is no evidence for MarnixR's statement

    "It's no longer the case that evolution happens elsewhere, it is an observed fact !"

    the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
    so what?
    then distinctions between abductive, inductive and deductive knowledge and their interplay with logic can greatly hamper such a 'scientist's' presentations
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i'm sorry, but i fail to see what you're trying to say - you accept evidence for speciation, but not for evolution ? what else is evolution but speciation + subsequent drifting apart of species ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i'm sorry, but i fail to see what you're trying to say - you accept evidence for speciation, but not for evolution ? what else is evolution but speciation + subsequent drifting apart of species ?
    speciation is within species and macroevolution is between species
    hence the fallacy of
    a x time = a1
    bx time = b2
    therefore a1 x time = b
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i'm sorry but your definition of speciation is dead wrong - look it up in any dictionary, on-line or otherwise, and you'll find something like :

    "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."

    speciation is the formation of new species, not variation within one species
    and besides there's no real difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution

    once species are reproductively separated from one another there is nothing holding them back from drifting further and further apart
    hence, despite your assertion, macro-evolution = micro-evolution * time (and there's lots of that anyway)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i'm sorry but your definition of speciation is dead wrong - look it up in any dictionary, on-line or otherwise, and you'll find something like :

    "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."



    speciation is the formation of new species, not variation within one species
    and besides there's no real difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution


    once species are reproductively separated from one another there is nothing holding them back from drifting further and further apart
    hence, despite your assertion, macro-evolution = micro-evolution * time (and there's lots of that anyway)
    you are correct - I should have used the word genus instead of species

    that said, the difference between macro and micro evolution is that one is observable and the other is tentative
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    that said, the difference between macro and micro evolution is that one is observable and the other is tentative
    i assume you mean that the other way round, but even so, we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    life doesn't have an ultimate meaning - get used to it
    Interesting response for a religion apologist! My understanding is that the main reason for religions is to provide purpose. All religions do. They provide goals for society to strive for. Christiantiy, for example, sets the goal of "heaven" and "the Second Coming."

    The problem with all these old relligions, however, is that such goals are hardly believable any more. We are all educated in science now and in order to believe such obsolete goals, we have to indoctrinate ourselve and accept it all "on faith." People go to Church just to have regular doses of it to keep up their shaky beliefs. It is not easy and Christian psychotherapy is a big backup for all the problems involved.

    Yet, there are certainly a number of important goals that we humans can and should be striving for. If we made them apart of a common world-view and way of thinking we could agree on--like religious people do---we could replace the old antiquated systems and work as a single human race to build a space industry that will enable us to colonize other planets and moons. We could also set goals such as the merging of the races, and population and environmental control. Another goal could simply be the building of a whole new civiliation because this old one is in rathery sorry shape.

    All this would be our "purpose." After all, we on Earth do have free will. All we need to do is use it. We need to set for ourselves our own purpose.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Interesting response for a religion apologist!
    i'm sorry, but are you referring to me ?
    because if you are, then you've got me all wrong

    i may have been a catholic by birth, but over time it gradually wore off and now i'm a confirmed atheist

    what was it that i said that gave you the wrong impression ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    that said, the difference between macro and micro evolution is that one is observable and the other is tentative
    i assume you mean that the other way round, but even so, we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject
    it should be easy enough to establish whether macro evolution is observable or not - all it requires are peer reviewed papers, much like any other observable phenomena in the field of science .....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    life doesn't have an ultimate meaning - get used to it
    Interesting response for a religion apologist! My understanding is that the main reason for religions is to provide purpose. All religions do. They provide goals for society to strive for. Christiantiy, for example, sets the goal of "heaven" and "the Second Coming."

    The problem with all these old relligions, however, is that such goals are hardly believable any more. We are all educated in science now and in order to believe such obsolete goals, we have to indoctrinate ourselve and accept it all "on faith." People go to Church just to have regular doses of it to keep up their shaky beliefs. It is not easy and Christian psychotherapy is a big backup for all the problems involved.

    Yet, there are certainly a number of important goals that we humans can and should be striving for. If we made them apart of a common world-view and way of thinking we could agree on--like religious people do---we could replace the old antiquated systems and work as a single human race to build a space industry that will enable us to colonize other planets and moons. We could also set goals such as the merging of the races, and population and environmental control. Another goal could simply be the building of a whole new civiliation because this old one is in rathery sorry shape.

    All this would be our "purpose." After all, we on Earth do have free will. All we need to do is use it. We need to set for ourselves our own purpose.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    all these things you set as human goals (controlling the environment,merging the races, etc) are simply the impossible dream of the atheist - contemporary materialistic life has made it practically impossible for a family to even live together, yet you feel it is the platform for grander achievements .... if current society appears to be in bad shape its due to seeds in the form of envy, lust etc ... so packing up and trashing another location seems far from a solution

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZuGW...elated&search=
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    punarmusiko wrote:
    it should be easy enough to establish whether macro evolution is observable or not
    Could you explain what you mean by macro evolution? What do you expect to see as evidence of macro evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i hadn't really intended to resume this debate which imo has gone stale, but i just want to make the following clear : in biology, the only classification entity that has any reality is the species

    any bona fide species can be defined as a population that is reproductively isolated, i.e. does not exchange genetic material with other species

    a genus (and for that matter any other classification above the level of species) is a human construct of convenience for grouping species together, usually based on physical or genetic similarities or lack thereof

    still, as soon as a bona fide species has been formed, there is nothing holding it back from drifting further and further away from species that at one time were closer to it - hence over time species can become different genera, families, classes etc.etc.

    in short if you allow speciation (your micro-evolution) you automatically allow macro-evolution
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i hadn't really intended to resume this debate which imo has gone stale, but i just want to make the following clear : in biology, the only classification entity that has any reality is the species

    any bona fide species can be defined as a population that is reproductively isolated, i.e. does not exchange genetic material with other species

    a genus (and for that matter any other classification above the level of species) is a human construct of convenience for grouping species together, usually based on physical or genetic similarities or lack thereof

    still, as soon as a bona fide species has been formed, there is nothing holding it back from drifting further and further away from species that at one time were closer to it - hence over time species can become different genera, families, classes etc.etc.

    in short if you allow speciation (your micro-evolution) you automatically allow macro-evolution
    then such knowledge is ultimately flawed since they have no real means to distinguish between a falcon, an eagle and a lobster (obviously the category of 'birds' and 'crustaceans' exist) ... thus its a further reason to be more hesitant about accepting such shifts between genus (at the very least, they have no evidence that a bird is limited in speciating only into other bird species)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    punarmusiko wrote:
    it should be easy enough to establish whether macro evolution is observable or not
    Could you explain what you mean by macro evolution? What do you expect to see as evidence of macro evolution?
    the theory for macro evolution is something like this

    a x time = a1
    b x time = b2
    therefore a1 x time = b

    evidence of the final premise would be helpful in granting it a status beyond theory
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    punarmusiko wrote:
    evidence of the final premise would be helpful in granting it a status beyond theory
    check at
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    kojax wrote:
    Natural selection is as random as the craps table in a gambling casino. It favours the house, but not perfectly. Over time, however, the odds always bear out. The only unprofitable casinos are the ones that don't have enough customers.

    The rules that govern it are the basic laws of strategy. Bad strategies sometimes succeed, but usually fail. The crocidile that eats all of its offspring probably won't have any surviving descendents, but it might under fortunate enough circumstances fail to eat one.


    then the cause of the craps game is the playing cards and the rules that govern the ebb and flow of money (hence strategy becomes possible) - in other words when you try to define a "system" as the cause of itself you land into difficulties as to how a strategy could develop the ingredients of the system (of course you could always say that material nature is eternal, but that leads to further difficulties)
    Well, suppose you try random strategies again and again. You eliminate the ones that don't work, and keep the ones that do. Over time, what's going to happen?

    That's how life works. The good strategies perpetuate through their offspring, and continue on indefinately. The bad ones fail to have offspring. Not always, but usually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    prasit, i'm afraid that punarmusiko falls in the category of people described in your link :

    "... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore ..."

    on several occasions he has misunderstood and/or refused to accept mainstream biological concepts for which there are probably better descriptions in the literature than i've been able to supply if you care to search them out

    that's why i've decided to stop trying to convince him of facts he doesn't want to hear about
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Interesting response for a religion apologist!
    i'm sorry, but are you referring to me ?
    because if you are, then you've got me all wrong

    i may have been a catholic by birth, but over time it gradually wore off and now i'm a confirmed atheist

    what was it that i said that gave you the wrong impression ?
    CAN'T FIND IT NOW. DON'T REMEMBER. ANYWAY, GLAD YOU SHARE MY
    N0N-BELIEF!


    Charles
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    punarmusiko wrote:
    evidence of the final premise would be helpful in granting it a status beyond theory
    check at
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
    yes, but evidence "in favor" is not quite what is needed to establish an empirical fact - in short, just because there is a similarity of designs , it doesn't necessarily mean that one design was the cause of the other - we can see even in this world how a designer can take one blueprint and produce several different articles from it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    prasit, i'm afraid that punarmusiko falls in the category of people described in your link :

    "... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore ..."

    on several occasions he has misunderstood and/or refused to accept mainstream biological concepts for which there are probably better descriptions in the literature than i've been able to supply if you care to search them out

    that's why i've decided to stop trying to convince him of facts he doesn't want to hear about
    if science has a foundation of empiricism for determining facts, you have nothing to talk about
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if science has a foundation of empiricism for determining facts, you have nothing to talk about
    meaning ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if science has a foundation of empiricism for determining facts, you have nothing to talk about
    meaning ?
    what you have in the way of establishing evolution is a tentative claim based on extrapolation as opposed to an empirically observable and repeatable phenomena
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    in science there are no final statements of truth
    all scientific statements are tentative to a greater or lesser degree
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    what you have in the way of establishing evolution is a tentative claim based on extrapolation as opposed to an empirically observable and repeatable phenomena
    I can observe (and have observed) evolution in the fosssil record. These observations have made repeatably for a variety of species, genera and families. Thus the evidence for evolution meets your requirements of empirical observation and repeatability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    in science there are no final statements of truth
    all scientific statements are tentative to a greater or lesser degree
    in the greater extent you have repeatability (like for instance iron smelting is a scientifically observable and repeatable fact) and int he lesser extent you have theory ( like for instance claiming that evolution occurred by using one's imperfect mind, intelligence and senses to fill in the gaps between two approximate findings on the historical scale)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    what you have in the way of establishing evolution is a tentative claim based on extrapolation as opposed to an empirically observable and repeatable phenomena
    I can observe (and have observed) evolution in the fosssil record. These observations have made repeatably for a variety of species, genera and families. Thus the evidence for evolution meets your requirements of empirical observation and repeatability.
    just because you are repeating the same application of logic to deduce what happened between A and B, it doesn't mean that such deduction are empirically valid, since ultimately there is no way to verify such deductions since no one is in the position of direct perception
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ... and in the lesser extent you have theory ...
    all perception is based on theory

    say for instance atomic theory : you could say that atoms exist because they have been photographed, hence observed

    however, a devil's advocate could say that what you see is an image that matches what the current theories about the atom predict you should see = one step away from the real thing

    even in everyday life perception is framed in past experience - e.g. you recognise things from past experience by matching them against a template

    in essence there's no qualitative difference between your "perception" and "theory" - they're a continuum from the single step to the multiple step deduction
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    I think you'll find that God is scientifically impossible to prove. If he does exist, I seriously doubt he's going to perform parlor tricks to make it known.

    As for the Bible and other religious texts, if you assume that the texts themselves are not subjective, then all that remains is whether or not you have faith. If you have faith that God exists, then he does, and religions lead on after that. If you don't, then the divine value of religious texts is nil (although I do believe there is good teaching in some of those texts).

    For the black-n-white scientific mind, think about the subject you are trying to study. What is the nature of a god? What are the properties of a god? Knowing those, how would you find out if a god existed? GOTO Line 1;

    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    ... and in the lesser extent you have theory ...
    all perception is based on theory

    say for instance atomic theory : you could say that atoms exist because they have been photographed, hence observed

    however, a devil's advocate could say that what you see is an image that matches what the current theories about the atom predict you should see = one step away from the real thing
    the difference is that if theory can be worked in such a way to yield results, like say one can use a laser to cool atoms and engineer a precise instrument for measuring time, then you have something different than ethereal theory that cannot be contained by any repeatable and observable experiment - and in the absence of abiogenesis or taking a cat and turning it into a dog, that is precisely what you have with chemical evolution
    even in everyday life perception is framed in past experience - e.g. you recognise things from past experience by matching them against a template

    in essence there's no qualitative difference between your "perception" and "theory" - they're a continuum from the single step to the multiple step deduction
    still, there is a world of difference between the theory behind iron smelting, or even laser cooling atoms, and that theory which evolution rides
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    still, there is a world of difference between the theory behind iron smelting, or even laser cooling atoms, and that theory which evolution rides
    I agree. Evolution is much more solidly based.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the difference is that if theory can be worked in such a way to yield results, ... , then you have something different than ethereal theory that cannot be contained by any repeatable and observable experiment
    it obviously has escaped your notice that the theory of evolution has yielded a plethora of predictions / retrodictions which can and have been tested

    besides, you're obviously not an engineer - if you were you would not confuse repeatability with precision
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the difference is that if theory can be worked in such a way to yield results, ... , then you have something different than ethereal theory that cannot be contained by any repeatable and observable experiment
    it obviously has escaped your notice that the theory of evolution has yielded a plethora of predictions / retrodictions which can and have been tested

    besides, you're obviously not an engineer - if you were you would not confuse repeatability with precision
    As important a topic as this is, it is usually such a waste of time to discuss evolution. People who are not either completely ignorant or completely dishonest understand that evolution is extremely well established in FACT and has so much evidence that arguing against it is silly. People who choose the path of ignorance are so married to their myopic viewpoint that no amount of evidence is sufficient. Sorry for the rant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    too true - i think now is the time for me to walk away from this thread before it goes totally stale on me
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    too true - i think now is the time for me to walk away from this thread before it goes totally stale on me
    Too late.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    still, there is a world of difference between the theory behind iron smelting, or even laser cooling atoms, and that theory which evolution rides
    I agree. Evolution is much more solidly based.
    the next question would be why they can use iron smelting to produce a car or laser cooling technology to produce a time piece for satellite systems yet there is no such equivelant application for the theory of evolution (abiogenesis would be a good start, or taking a dog and turning it into a cat)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the difference is that if theory can be worked in such a way to yield results, ... , then you have something different than ethereal theory that cannot be contained by any repeatable and observable experiment
    it obviously has escaped your notice that the theory of evolution has yielded a plethora of predictions / retrodictions which can and have been tested
    if that is the case you certainly haven't provided the link for it



    besides, you're obviously not an engineer - if you were you would not confuse repeatability with precision
    thats okay - I never said I was - you on the otherhand have asserted that evolutionary theory has yielded a plethora of testable claims [/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the difference is that if theory can be worked in such a way to yield results, ... , then you have something different than ethereal theory that cannot be contained by any repeatable and observable experiment
    it obviously has escaped your notice that the theory of evolution has yielded a plethora of predictions / retrodictions which can and have been tested

    besides, you're obviously not an engineer - if you were you would not confuse repeatability with precision
    As important a topic as this is, it is usually such a waste of time to discuss evolution. People who are not either completely ignorant or completely dishonest understand that evolution is extremely well established in FACT and has so much evidence that arguing against it is silly. People who choose the path of ignorance are so married to their myopic viewpoint that no amount of evidence is sufficient. Sorry for the rant.
    its okay for you to say that evolution is a fact - but unless you can establish it without diminishing the impact of the word "fact" you have an argument based on the fallacy of authority at best
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if that is the case you certainly haven't provided the link for it ... you on the otherhand have asserted that evolutionary theory has yielded a plethora of testable claims ...
    you obviously don't believe me when i say that i'm stopping because if feel this thread has gone stale on me

    the links + evidence is out there - feel free to look it up for yourself, i can't be arsed to guide a horse to the water when it doesn't want to drink

    over and out
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    if that is the case you certainly haven't provided the link for it ... you on the otherhand have asserted that evolutionary theory has yielded a plethora of testable claims ...
    you obviously don't believe me when i say that i'm stopping because if feel this thread has gone stale on me

    the links + evidence is out there - feel free to look it up for yourself, i can't be arsed to guide a horse to the water when it doesn't want to drink

    over and out
    but the links are not empirically conclusive - I don't argue that they have not presented something which may appear logical - I argue that they have not presented something testable and repeatable which is the basis of all empirical claims

    If you disagree, better you try and establish how the claims of evolution, particularly into macroevolution, have an empirical basis rather than relying on confidence statements
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    you're on my ignore list
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •