The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[sealybobo]

But until you have evidence "it" even exists it is not only dumb to insist or believe it planted anything it is also crazy to speculate it even exists.

I'm sorry, I thought I presented my evidence? Didn't we talk about how it's not possible for physical nature to have created itself? What you and others keep demanding is some kind of physical proof for a spiritual thing and that also defies logic. If you have physical proof of something spiritual, it's no longer spiritual.

You want us to accept a premise that is false just because our primitive ancestors "always" did. Your premise is that science can't call bullshit on the God hypothesis. Well it did and God has lost popularity.

I've been clear, I don't give a shit what you accept, it makes no difference to me. Humans have been spiritual since the get-go.. not just the ancients, all human civilizations that ever existed. You claim here that Science "called bullshit on God" but you've failed to provide any evidence for that statement. And then you somehow seem to assume Science is based on popularity and popular thought. That Science proves and disproves on the basis of popularity. It's funny, I don't find that anywhere in the scientific method.

If you show a skeptic all the facts they will question the scientific community on ALL the facts.

You haven't presented any facts!

Materialism/Evidentialism/Science cannot recognize supernatural phenomena.

Distortion of reality. Lack of Critical thinking. The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan. What is real? What constitutes knowledge? Are all supernatural claims implicitly true? Why/Why not?

A person who disbelieves for poor reasons is no better off than someone who believes for poor reasons. Disbelieving in astrology because a priest tells you to is no better than believing in a god because the same priest tells you to do so.

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way. Furthermore, when supernatural claims become sufficiently nebulous one may ask if there is any substantive difference between them being true and nothing existing at all.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

See also: Skewed views of science (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan (a must read), Delusion, Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception.

“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin

 

[sealybobo]

Now I see. You want your theory to carry the same weight as evolution.

It don't. Sorry

Sure it does! I'm just going to start repeating it over and over...
Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me! You're an idiot! It's a proven scientific fact!
Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me! You're an idiot! It's a proven scientific fact!
Science is on my side! Everyone agrees with me! You're an idiot! It's a proven scientific fact!

How does that feel? What are you gonna say about it smart guy?

See I can do the same thing as you... You don't want to back your claims up, you just want to sit here day in and day out and demagogue the thread with the same old tired rant. Rinse and repeat, day after fucking day... over and over and over again. You have not made your case, you can't make your case and you're not ever going to make your case.

I can’t believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.

Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty(a must watch).

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan

“God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”– Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[sealybobo]

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You would do well to actually learn about the science you stutter and mumble about but don't understand. Your "macro evolution" meme is right out of the Henry Morris playbook. You really should check your membership to the Christian fundamentalist / Flat Earth Society groups at the door. Your knowledge of science just screams out amateur with your pontificating.

 

[sealybobo]

How much evidence does Boss need?

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims aboutand definitions of a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

How do you explain that many insects, including the fruit fly, can adapt physically to the poisons we have sprayed on produce to kill them.

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

 

[sealybobo]

Another one of Boss' bad arguments debunked.

1. Complexity/Order proves god exists.

The Teleological argument [2], or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defectsconsistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneousself-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation >Abiogenesis > Evolution

Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organisation, Evolution [2], The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado [2] (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

 

[Wyatt earp]

Adaptive evolution happens all the time. I've never argued otherwise. DNA is versatile enough that it can (sometimes) adapt to environment or conditions of survival. Sometimes, it can't and the species becomes extinct. You'd think that if macroevolution were possible, we'd rarely see extinction, the species would simply evolve into some other form of life and keep on trucking... but that doesn't happen, as about 95% of the species which have inhabited the earth are extinct.

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

 

[sealybobo]

And I know Boss talks to this god so

1. I feel a personal relationship with god OR I experienced god.

Argument from personal experience. A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an ‘unseen actor’) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent. Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist. Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called ‘revelations’ never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis. Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.

 

[Boss]

Faith, as in full "blind" trust, without any evidence, is not applicable in science.
If you don't believe in scientific consensus, then you are definitely not a scientist ,,, unless you propose a rational alternative explanation.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "spiritual nature" ain't it.

Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science without spiritual nature becoming physical... hence, it would cease to be spiritual. ...

If blind trust (faith) is not acceptable in science, you need to be talking to the people here who believe in abiogenesis and macroevolution. There is no evidence for it. ...
Scientific "consensus" is not science. That is an appeal to popularity.

---
Exactly; "Spiritual nature cannot be proved with physical science" ...
because our perceptions are material.
Our emotional thoughts perceive experiences as "spiritual", also in the physical/material domain.
So, how can you claim a non-emotional "spiritual" domain exists when you can't perceive it with your physical senses?

Faith in macroevolution represents theory, and is based on phylogenetic evidence of common ancestry. I consider it (TOE) as the best explanation for our biological origins.
However, abiogenesis is another matter. We do not yet have credible evidence for it, and my belief is neutral in that regard.
Scientific consensus does not exist for abiogenesis.
I would much rather place my trust in credible experts in their scientific field than others.
If you are diagnosed with a terminal disease, would you rather go to spiritual faith healers, or to medical experts with MDs & PhDs?
.

Lot's of things exist that we can't perceive with our physical senses. Probably the most intriguing is dark energy and dark matter which make up 96% of our universe. Our perception is so limited we can only interact with 4% of what's there. So you can see where it's silly to conclude something doesn't exist because we lack perception to sense it physically.

What is the "best explanation" is not always the correct explanation. Science and the scientific method doesn't state that our best explanations are the truth and fact. It doesn't state that the best explanation can be the truth unless and until another better explanation comes along. "Phylogenetic evidence of common ancestry" is essentially the same as saying "scriptural evidence of a higher power." Phylogenetics is our speculation on how things evolved. So you are saying the evidence supporting your theory is the charts we created to explain how we supposedly evolved.

There is as much physical evidence for abiogenesis as there is for macro-evolution. Both remain unproved theories. Some evolution happens (micro) and we have evidence to support that. We theorize why, it's because the organism attempts to adapt to conditions more suitable to survive. In no way does that explain a theory of macro-evolution.

Finally, you speak of terminal disease, spiritual faith and medical experts.... there is compelling evidence for spiritual healing. Cancer Treatment Centers of America features spiritual medicine as a part of their program. There are countless examples of people overcoming terminal illnesses through prayer and faith. These are always dismissed as anomalies and flukes but they do happen all the time.

 

[sealybobo]

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is.

In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves.

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

 

[sealybobo]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

 

[Boss]

Silly boob... are you going to copy and paste the entirety of the Talkingorigins.org website here? Can't get enough people to go to your propaganda links so you bring the links to them, eh? All you're doing is proving my point that you don't have an argument. If you had one, you'd present it rather than flood the board with propaganda.

 

[Boss]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

 

[sealybobo]

Silly boob... are you going to copy and paste the entirety of the Talkingorigins.org website here? Can't get enough people to go to your propaganda links so you bring the links to them, eh? All you're doing is proving my point that you don't have an argument. If you had one, you'd present it rather than flood the board with propaganda.

I re read through the site AGAIN for the 100th time and each of these points perfectly explains why you are wrong, on every point you make. So why keep repeating it. I think it's cool that there is a fucking website that lays out 46 reasons why there is no god.

Why there is no god
Every argument you make, the site debunks

 

[sealybobo]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.

1 prayer out of 1000 answered? Pathetic.

 

[sealybobo]

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

“To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

 

[sealybobo]

I believe it is more than 95%. Some changes in conditions are just too immediate and deadly. The numbers in any species has a lot to do with success sometimes. If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Every situation has it's own conditions and threats to survival. What do you think would have happened to the human species if some of the raptors and pterodactyls were present competing with us in our present state but we hadn't developed explosives we can use as weapons? If we were not war-like we could have become docile creatures and wiped out by some late blooming dinosaurs. Evolution for us involved a lot of dumb luck as well as a well developed brain.

If there are several billion fruit flies the chance that even just a few thousand might have the proper DNA to not only survive but to come back stronger than before.

Perhaps, but what they don't appear to do is morph into a genera other than what they are. You see... after studying them for 100 years through billions of generations, they can't even produce a new amino acid or enzyme, and they need to do that if a different DNA is created. Without a different DNA, they are stuck as fruit flies.

The other stuff you're saying about survival and what happened when with dinosaurs and such... I don't know... you don't know. I think you have a healthy imagination, which is good... but you don't really have any scientific evidence to support any of that... so you know what that means, right? It's faith-based belief.

And hey.... Let's be clear, there is nothing wrong with imagination or faith-based beliefs... I think every human inherently has them. We just can't pretend they are science or based in science. That's the primary point of my arguments here... I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just keep the record straight on what science supports and what is faith-based belief.

You are part right and part not. I do rationalize, and sometimes incorrectly, when I explore a possibility. I do something like playing the devil's advocate for and against my own postulate. As far as faith based, I don't think so because I have no more faith in my own theories than I do concerning my dreams. Sometimes I just spitball to see what sticks.

Faith based individuals have little wiggle room. They buy in to what ever degree and that puts their viewpoint on rails. I can spin around on a dime and travel backwards as fast as forwards depending on how the chips fall.

Chess or checkers? The better one is, the dumber and more a waste of time they become. To me they are fun and interesting only when there is a lack of knowledge producing more chance, fun and surprise when there is success. I can't imagine wasting the time to learn enough moves just to embarrass a lot of people. I don't need to win that badly. If I am going to ensure a win by practice and study I need a good reason, a game worth winning.. When the subject is interesting fair intelligent input is far more entertaining than claiming a notch on my belt.

Look, I am really not sure what you're trying to say with the last part about checkers and chess or how it pertains to faith or science. So let's go back to your first couple of paragraphs and discuss this...

Faith isn't about whether you rationalize. It's also not about how willing you are to be open minded or change your mind. Faith is simply believing without evidence and we do it all the time. We're all faith-based individuals to a degree, we cannot avoid that. Sometimes we must accept things on faith because we really don't have another choice. We would literally drive ourselves mad on a daily basis if we were skeptical about everything. So there isn't anything wrong with having faith, we all do it, that just makes us humans.

In this thread, we have people who are expressing their faith in science that theories of macroevolution are correct. But science and faith don't mix well. Faith is belief without evidence and science is about finding evidence. When exploring science, we have to check our faith at the door and remain skeptical. Science isn't faith and faith isn't science. It is important to realize when you've stopped practicing science and begin practicing faith.

You make all bad arguments. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot.

Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it.

Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.

Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.

Bullshit Atheism has become a religion there is no denying it no matter how much spin you want to put on it


.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

 

[Boss]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?

 

[sealybobo]

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us?

If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.

So you think the billions of people who worship a God are hearing "deafening silence" from God in answering their prayers? That's pretty incredible faith... I mean, think how much you could believe in your nonsense if there were deafening silence from talkingorigins.org or Neil deGrasse Tyson?

It seems to me like God makes himself obvious to those who open their heart to him and believe. If that didn't happen, I doubt many people could believe in God. What God did for 13.7 billion years or 50 bazillion years... doesn't really matter to God... Time is irrelevant to spirit. You've presented no evidence that anything "watched with complete and utter indifference" at anything. You're full of these wild speculations and perceptions you've created inside your own mind.... a mind that remains closed to any kind of rational thinking.

Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

Now... IF ONLY you would practice Science instead of clinging to your faith?

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”– Douglas Adams