Are you an evolutionist or a creationist?
| Funny how even religious art has adam and eve depicted with belly buttons |
| Evolution makes more sense, and has actual evidence. Now since creation is so far a belief, it is an entirely different matter. Hexis said: AbstractCalamity said: ^ This. I mean, we've observed it happening. There is no debate. The theory of evolution is as about controversial as the theory of gravity (which is also "just a theory"). its newtons LAW of gravity. its not a theory The terms "LAW" and "theory" had their scientific definitions changed for a while. Oversimplifying things: A theory is a set of ideas to explain a phenomenon or phenomena, which are first hypothesised, and then PROVEN, peer-reviewed and verified through experiments and/or observations. In a certain way, one might say a theory is what constitutes the truth about the phenomenon, and anyone qualified (or sometimes those who are not) might try to disprove the theory in case its observations and/or experiments are conflicting. |
 |
GilgameshEnkidu said: Evolution makes more sense, and has actual evidence. Now since creation is so far a belief, it is an entirely different matter. Hexis said: AbstractCalamity said: ^ This. I mean, we've observed it happening. There is no debate. The theory of evolution is as about controversial as the theory of gravity (which is also "just a theory"). its newtons LAW of gravity. its not a theory The terms "LAW" and "theory" had their scientific definitions changed for a while. Oversimplifying things: A theory is a set of ideas to explain a phenomenon or phenomena, which are first hypothesised, and then PROVEN, peer-reviewed and verified through experiments and/or observations. In a certain way, one might say a theory is what constitutes the truth about the phenomenon, and anyone qualified (or sometimes those who are not) might try to disprove the theory in case its observations and/or experiments are conflicting. a theory is a set of ideas to explain a phenomena as you said. but a law is a set of observations, they dont try to explain any phenomena. take the LAW of gravity for example. all it states is that if you drop an apple it will fall to the ground. no exceptions to this rule have been found, so its a law. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Hexis said: GilgameshEnkidu said: Evolution makes more sense, and has actual evidence. Now since creation is so far a belief, it is an entirely different matter. Hexis said: AbstractCalamity said: ^ This. I mean, we've observed it happening. There is no debate. The theory of evolution is as about controversial as the theory of gravity (which is also "just a theory"). its newtons LAW of gravity. its not a theory The terms "LAW" and "theory" had their scientific definitions changed for a while. Oversimplifying things: A theory is a set of ideas to explain a phenomenon or phenomena, which are first hypothesised, and then PROVEN, peer-reviewed and verified through experiments and/or observations. In a certain way, one might say a theory is what constitutes the truth about the phenomenon, and anyone qualified (or sometimes those who are not) might try to disprove the theory in case its observations and/or experiments are conflicting. a theory is a set of ideas to explain a phenomena as you said. but a law is a set of observations, they dont try to explain any phenomena. take the LAW of gravity for example. all it states is that if you drop an apple it will fall to the ground. no exceptions to this rule have been found, so its a law. True, just wanted to make things clear, but as it was stated before there is the law of gravity, and there is the theory of gravity by (mostly)Newton. |
| |
| I, myself, am a Creationist. I believe strongly in God, but I don't let that get in the way of having friends from all different religions - whether they be Muslims, Hindus, Evolutionists, Atheists...;D I don't look at what religion they are, but at their personality. ^^ In my opinion you should never let religion get in the way of a good friendship. But yes, I am a Christian. Kings2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. ^ That scripture always confused me too, and has confused many others. It is, indeed, one of the many confusing scriptures in the bible out there. Hmm... |
| "Pasta~" Italy from Hetalia: Axis Powers "Dying or getting killed isn't something unnatural. Living aimlessly without a purpose is." --Kiba from Wolf's Rain "It is not drunk driving if you're only drinking wine!" --France from Hetalia |
SparrowKeeper said: I, myself, am a Creationist. I believe strongly in God, but I don't let that get in the way of having friends from all different religions - whether they be Muslims, Hindus, Evolutionists, Atheists...;D I don't look at what religion they are, but at their personality. ^^ In my opinion you should never let religion get in the way of a good friendship. You best be trollin' |
Hexis said: AbstractCalamity said: ^ This. I mean, we've observed it happening. There is no debate. The theory of evolution is as about controversial as the theory of gravity (which is also "just a theory"). its newtons LAW of gravity. its not a theory You want to play word games? Fine. Why is germ theory still called a theory? Germs still exist, whether or not you want to call it a theory or a law. Why is atomic theory still called a theory? Atoms still exist, whether or not you want to call it a theory or a law. Why is the theory of relativity still called a theory? One must take the Lorentz factor into account as v->c, whether or not you want to call it a theory or a law. Why is quantum field theory still called a theory? Why is cell theory still called a theory? Why is chaos theory still called a theory? Definition of a scientific theory: 1. a scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena 2. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena When scientists say 'theory', they mean something very different from what you and I might mean when we hear the word. A scientific theory is more than a fact; it explains multiple facts to utmost accuracy - uncontested by rival hypotheses - and what's more, it predicts new phenomena the discovery of which strengthens the theory yet more. And BTW, Newton's laws of motion don't work so well at high velocities (thus we need the theory of special relativity) and for highly massive bodies (thus we need the theory of general relativity). Argument from semantics, saying "but it's only a theory!", just doesn't work anymore. Hexis said: ycart59 said: Hexis said: lol the common misconception of evolution that things go from simple to complex...makes me lol at people that dont understand what evolution is, yet say they believe in it. This is usually where you tell the ignorant people what evolution really is, isn't it? its a process of diversification, specialization, and selection. thinking we came from monkeys is utterly rubbish. No one says we came from monkeys, monkeys and humans are cousins. It seems to me that the one who has misconceptions of evolution is you. |
| I think people should make the distinction between there being a 'God' figure, as in all powerful creator, and the 'God' who appears in the various religions and creation myths. While it is not possible to prove that there is no 'God' -since no matter what we may observe on this planet or in the universe, a Creator figure with Gods abilities would be able to manipulate the results to his own whim; kind of like how some say that Dinosaur fossils exist to 'test our faith'. I know this sounds absurd and I certainly wouldn't be convinced by such an argument, but at the same time we cannot say with certainty that this is not happening. However being unable to prove God doesn't exist is not quite the same as being unable to prove the Judeo-Christian God, or any other God, does not exist. I find the more I contemplate the possibility of such a figure existing, the more preposterous it sounds. I have not read the Bible, nor do I think scouring it for inconsistencies or contradictions is of much use. Instead, I think we should try and consider the rationale of such a Creator figure. After all the Bible, Qur'an etc. are all religious texts written by men (with divine insight or not) but God itself is a concept. If the concept itself is prone to these inconsistencies then I do not see why we need to bother with the specifics. I do not believe in God, because I have not seen any evidence to verify God's existence. If I were to encounter such evidence, then I would cease to disbelieve in him and would do what was necessary to show my love for him. Despite not believing in God, I still try to conduct myself appropriately and show kindness onto others and so on. Let us imagine that someone who believes in God does exactly the same as I do. Would God send me to hell, but let him go to heaven because he was faithful? That seems to me to be quite illogical, because it means God -a being who is all powerful and all seeing- is punishing me not for my actions, but for behaving rationally. Also, being all-seeing God would know that I am not doing this out of any ill-intentions, I am simply being consistent. There are many other things we cannot prove exist, such as Unicorns, but most people do not believe Unicorns exist simply because we cannot prove they do not exist. Yet, I still try to be a virtuous person and treat others well. God would see that I am still behaving the way he wants me to, and that I do not mean to be a bad person. Yet, he will not do anything to show me the light and has condemned me to eternal suffering anyway. Of course, I am not the first person to think about this, and most religions will have an answer involving 'original sin' or something along similar lines. However that fails to address the question because I am being punished for the actions of others. Once again, if God is a rational being and is all seeing then he would know I am not a bad person, and would forgive me. There is still the possibility that God is an irrational being, but if that is the case then there is nothing that can be done to remain in his favour, as he does not apply rationality to his decisions. Basically, he acts on whim alone. These contradictions seem to me to be rather fundamental and make the whole subject a rather dubious one. You are welcome to provide an answer for me, but I am not interested in reading any religious texts which do not address the issue rationally. In other words, I do not want a clause which appears to have been created for the sole purpose of avoiding this dilemma; it must provide an answer for it. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
Miss-Awesome said: Uh, actually yes, in the end god is to blame for everything. As long as you assume god is omnipotent, then he is the root of it all. Though I don't think God is to blame for everything. You should blame Humans too for all the atrocities they committed and still commit everyday. With omnipotence comes omniscience, and with that, the "free will" that humans supposedly have becomes meaningless for god, as he will always know every single decision we will make. This means that when god popped the balloon of the big bang or whatever, he knew that humans had a inclination towards certain behaviours, but still deemed many of these as "evil", and then went to punish people for "sins" that he knew they would commit because that's how he made them. Consequently, god cannot possibly be "good", if he was, he could easily have made changes during our process of evolution to turn us into creatures that would not commit these "sins". That's the problem with a omnipotent god, it ultimately removes all responsibility from everyone else and place it at the gods' shoulders. Perhaps one can argue that since our free will is still free will as far as we humans are concerned, we are still responsible for our actions amongst ourselves, but certainly not before god. AnnoKano said: As far as I recall, the Christian lore states that anyone that has lead a "virtuous" life will be given the choice to serve as servants in New Jerusalem, no matter what beliefs they subscribed to. Only the "sinners" and anyone that refuse to genuflect will be cast in the lake of fire to die a final death.Once again, if God is a rational being and is all seeing then he would know I am not a bad person, and would forgive me. |
traed said: Uhhh God killed millions in the bible, satan killed what like 3? I never liked that argument. I've never read the bible and I don't understand anything about Christianity. But wouldn't the argument be that, in the end, God controls death, therefore he does have to kill everyone. But Satan is more the empowerment of sins and wrongdoings and not so much murder and death. Even as an atheist, I call people out on that argument. |
 |
ycart59 said: traed said: Uhhh God killed millions in the bible, satan killed what like 3? I never liked that argument. I've never read the bible and I don't understand anything about Christianity. But wouldn't the argument be that, in the end, God controls death, therefore he does have to kill everyone. But Satan is more the empowerment of sins and wrongdoings and not so much murder and death. Even as an atheist, I call people out on that argument. I'm sorry but when God opts to commit genocide, in the process of which he kills millions of innocent children (and why kill plants?), I have to call BS. As Baman pointed out, if god truly is omnipotent and omniscient, he should have foreseen the 'sins' that the humans would commit and devised the means from stopping those 'sins' to be committed. He should have tried to prevent those actions by magic instead of killing everything. (Honestly, what did kittens do?) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil, Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus A god who kills kittens is a god unworthy of worship. |
ycart59 said: traed said: As Hitchens said, this argument is about actual genocides that god commits himself, not just the general idea of people dying. Typical examples are the story of Noah's ark (Though no matter how you look at it, that one is obviously 100% bullshit), destroying a couple of cities because there were "sinners" there, killing the firstborn children in Egypt and so on.I never liked that argument. I've never read the bible and I don't understand anything about Christianity. But wouldn't the argument be that, in the end, God controls death, therefore he does have to kill everyone. But Satan is more the empowerment of sins and wrongdoings and not so much murder and death. |
traed said: SparrowKeeper said: I, myself, am a Creationist. I believe strongly in God, but I don't let that get in the way of having friends from all different religions - whether they be Muslims, Hindus, Evolutionists, Atheists...;D I don't look at what religion they are, but at their personality. ^^ In my opinion you should never let religion get in the way of a good friendship. You best be trollin' She's 13. At least what the profile says. But even so.. Evolutionists, Atheists - religion? Derp. |
| LUL |
Hitchens said: You want to play word games? Fine. Why is germ theory still called a theory? Germs still exist, whether or not you want to call it a theory or a law. Why is atomic theory still called a theory? Atoms still exist, whether or not you want to call it a theory or a law. Why is the theory of relativity still called a theory? One must take the Lorentz factor into account as v->c, whether or not you want to call it a theory or a law. Why is quantum field theory still called a theory? Why is cell theory still called a theory? Why is chaos theory still called a theory? Definition of a scientific theory: 1. a scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena 2. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena When scientists say 'theory', they mean something very different from what you and I might mean when we hear the word. A scientific theory is more than a fact; it explains multiple facts to utmost accuracy - uncontested by rival hypotheses - and what's more, it predicts new phenomena the discovery of which strengthens the theory yet more. And BTW, Newton's laws of motion don't work so well at high velocities (thus we need the theory of special relativity) and for highly massive bodies (thus we need the theory of general relativity). Argument from semantics, saying "but it's only a theory!", just doesn't work anymore. it was never a argument of semantics. ltr. Hitchens said: No one says we came from monkeys, monkeys and humans are cousins. It seems to me that the one who has misconceptions of evolution is you. oh so the picture in the OP doesn't show that stick figures came from circles? i think you need to understand what others are saying before you try to reply. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Ah, amigos, don't judge age, yes? I'm a troller? I'm immature because I'm 13? I 'troll' because I'm 13? Firstly I'm not a troller. ^^ Ah, but let's not get off topic, haha. And anyway, what is wrong with saying that? ^^ It's my particular belief. I think what annoys me the most of the people of my religion is their way of handling things; often they handle things too immaturely, or with no rationality. That annoys me, as in the end what does it do to help? Nothing. Accept other people's beliefs. It's a free world. People have a right to believe what they want. But there's no harm in debating, yes? ;D Haha. |
| "Pasta~" Italy from Hetalia: Axis Powers "Dying or getting killed isn't something unnatural. Living aimlessly without a purpose is." --Kiba from Wolf's Rain "It is not drunk driving if you're only drinking wine!" --France from Hetalia |
SparrowKeeper said: Ah, amigos, don't judge age, yes? I'm a troller? I'm immature because I'm 13? I 'troll' because I'm 13? Firstly I'm not a troller. ^^ Ah, but let's not get off topic, haha. And anyway, what is wrong with saying that? ^^ It's my particular belief. I think what annoys me the most of the people of my religion is their way of handling things; often they handle things too immaturely, or with no rationality. That annoys me, as in the end what does it do to help? Nothing. Accept other people's beliefs. It's a free world. People have a right to believe what they want. But there's no harm in debating, yes? ;D Haha. They are being smartasses because you called Evolutionists and Atheists a religion. That is, Evolutionism and Atheism. You did nothing wrong, just didn't use the right word, and people use that to feed their ego. |
 |
| Ah, I see. Well my mistake. I didn't mean to classify it as a religion, and I apologize if I offended you with my misuse of words. ^^ |
| "Pasta~" Italy from Hetalia: Axis Powers "Dying or getting killed isn't something unnatural. Living aimlessly without a purpose is." --Kiba from Wolf's Rain "It is not drunk driving if you're only drinking wine!" --France from Hetalia |
SparrowKeeper said: I, myself, am a Creationist. I believe strongly in God, but I don't let that get in the way of having friends from all different religions - whether they be Muslims, Hindus, Evolutionists, Atheists...;D I don't look at what religion they are, but at their personality. ^^ In my opinion you should never let religion get in the way of a good friendship. But yes, I am a Christian. Kings2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. ^ That scripture always confused me too, and has confused many others. It is, indeed, one of the many confusing scriptures in the bible out there. Hmm... I'm with you, I'm protestant myself and a lot of my friends are catholic (there are differences in belief of the two) Even had a muslim classmate, we may not be friends but we get along just fine. The bible certainly has many confusing verses, I admit that. |
"Fortress Maximus has come himself. Okay! Then I shall get Fortress Maximus to fight me, huh huh huh!" |
SparrowKeeper said: I, myself, am a Creationist. I believe strongly in God, but I don't let that get in the way of having friends from all different religions - whether they be Muslims, Hindus, Evolutionists, Atheists...;D I don't look at what religion they are, but at their personality. ^^ In my opinion you should never let religion get in the way of a good friendship. But yes, I am a Christian. The problem is that "Creationism" is a term mainly associated with Christian fundamentalists, who deny all facts that contradict the Bible. I don't know what type of Christianity you practice, but unless you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs lived with humans (both proven to be incorrect), then I don't think you should label yourself as Creationist. I have no problems with most people of religion (as long as they don't force it upon me), but the extremist groups are a problem in any religion. |
NarmyMay 6, 2012 9:42 PM
 |
| Dead end. Again. It just seems that non-believers are the only ones discussing and are interested. The believers are like "I don't care, I believe in what I want". Sad to see that people don't care for their beliefs, are they true or not. Asking "Why do I believe?" is a step, unless the answer is "Because it comforts me" or "I've been raised as such". |
| LUL |
| ^ You're taking this a bit too seriously. |
Hitchens said: ^ You're taking this a bit too seriously. Delusion vs Reality. That's srs business. |
| LUL |
Hitchens said: Perhaps in the context of a discussion on an anime forum, yeah. However, the underlying problem he brings up is something to be concerned about, especially since that exact type of theist is more likely to go out and vote. How can we trust such people to make informed decisions that affect all of us when their entire life's philosophy revolves around unsubstantiated beliefs?^ You're taking this a bit too seriously. |
one-more-time said: Hitchens said: ^ You're taking this a bit too seriously. Delusion vs Reality. That's srs business. Xjellocross said: Hitchens said: Perhaps in the context of a discussion on an anime forum, yeah. However, the underlying problem he brings up is something to be concerned about, especially since that exact type of theist is more likely to go out and vote. How can we trust such people to make informed decisions that affect all of us when their entire life's philosophy revolves around unsubstantiated beliefs?^ You're taking this a bit too seriously. In a sense what I mean is that the other side (for the sake of argument) hasn't provided much debate fodder for us to go on. I completely agree that the undermining of reason and scientific validity should be rebutted, and in the case of creationism, with ridicule. But in this particular forum, that which would require serious discussion or debate just hasn't shown itself yet. |
| I believe in evolution but, I do believe god as a 'force' not a being. Its not something that makes choices or has a good or evil side or gives what people thinks. Its something that affects whats around it just by being there. |
GilgameshEnkidu said: Evolution makes more sense, and has actual evidence. Now since creation is so far a belief, it is an entirely different matter. Hexis said: AbstractCalamity said: ^ This. I mean, we've observed it happening. There is no debate. The theory of evolution is as about controversial as the theory of gravity (which is also "just a theory"). its newtons LAW of gravity. its not a theory The terms "LAW" and "theory" had their scientific definitions changed for a while. Oversimplifying things: A theory is a set of ideas to explain a phenomenon or phenomena, which are first hypothesised, and then PROVEN, peer-reviewed and verified through experiments and/or observations. In a certain way, one might say a theory is what constitutes the truth about the phenomenon, and anyone qualified (or sometimes those who are not) might try to disprove the theory in case its observations and/or experiments are conflicting. You never prove a theory. You never. I can't even prove Newton's Second Law myself. All I can say is that it statistically matches a lot of data and is a good approximation if higher order terms are not observable. That's the correct way when dealing with science. Hexis said: AbstractCalamity said: ^ This. I mean, we've observed it happening. There is no debate. The theory of evolution is as about controversial as the theory of gravity (which is also "just a theory"). its newtons LAW of gravity. its not a theory Gravity is a THEORY. I don't want to say this but as a scientist, one must be clear. If anything it would be the 'law' of evolution, too. If one accepts one theory as law, all other theories, if undiscarded, must be treated as 'laws.' I'd like to commend Hitchens for a more correct view. I'm not saying it's correct, but it's not even wrong, and that's better than being wrong. |
 「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
Miss-Awesome said: I dont know. I think the problem is you mixed up "intelligent design" with "creationism" since creationism is pretty much almost the abrahamic brand name so thats why i kept using christianity as a reference is because whenever you said what you beleived it sounded like you were talking about the same thing as in the bible. Where else did you get your ideas from?Bad choice of words in Bootcamp, I meant something like preparation and I don't know why you keep linking me to Christianity and the Bible. I've already said in one of my previous posts that you can't really call me Christian. I must admit that my core may be Christian but my mind keeps telling me there is something wrong. I found myself questioning Christianity many times and I'm still questioning it to this day. My only strong belief is in God. I've studied other religions and just recently started studying Islam. Perhaps it holds all the answers. Though I don't think God is to blame for everything. You should blame Humans too for all the atrocities they committed and still commit everyday. Islam came quite a bit after christianity and for the most part is a bootleg copy of it and Judaism. Although the whole Jinn thing is somewhat interesting how they describe them. If you want some interesting things to look into look into Sufism, the Kaballah, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism (already know you ahve looked at that) and also Gnosticism. For more modern religions read about Bahai Faith, Tenrykyo, Cao Dai, Wicca or neopaganism in general (way too much misinformation on this one so its hard to look for accurate stuff), New Thought, and both theistic and LaVeyan Satanism (its not evil its just a different perspective but it is a little immature in some aspects) Of course reading philosophy is sometimes more useful that reading about religion since it can go into details a lot more. The oldest religion thats still living in the world is either Judaism or Hinduism. In a way everyone is to blame and no one is to blame. The world in how it works seems complex in how everyone interacts. SparrowKeeper said: I wasnt feeding my ego its just really stupid when people dont know what a religion is and claim atheism and evolotionism is a religion, so I was just making sure. I didnt really think of the possibility of poor wording. People use the whole, "atheism is a religion" thing as a way to attempt to discredit it because they think they follow it blindly instead of use logic to come to a conclusion. I was just speaking against that possability. They are being smartasses because you called Evolutionists and Atheists a religion. That is, Evolutionism and Atheism. You did nothing wrong, just didn't use the right word, and people use that to feed their ego. |
traedMay 6, 2012 11:50 PM
Zmffkskem said: Gravity is a THEORY. I don't want to say this but as a scientist, one must be clear. If anything it would be the 'law' of evolution, too. If one accepts one theory as law, all other theories, if undiscarded, must be treated as 'laws.' I'd like to commend Hitchens for a more correct view. I'm not saying it's correct, but it's not even wrong, and that's better than being wrong. not my words, but they describe my train of thought. "In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc. While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world." |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
kyuuzo2 said: I believe in evolution but, I do believe god as a 'force' not a being. Its not something that makes choices or has a good or evil side or gives what people thinks. Its something that affects whats around it just by being there. I'm always puzzled when it comes to ones own definition or the image of god. Why would you believe in such thing in the first place, when there's no rational* reasoning behind it and most important - evidence. Why? This is the question I get no answer to, for the most of the time. "I believe in a Unicorn God, who's out of the time and universe, he designed the engine and everything is following it AND he's supernatural." p.s. by force you mean this? Quantum physics? Or something supernatural....? .. or maybe  * added "rational", hope that fixes it, traed. |
one-more-timeMay 7, 2012 5:42 AM
| LUL |
| ^ Actually you're confusing anything thats not your type of reasoning as not reasoning at all. |
pitilesscnsr said: I think their argument is pretty logical, you obviously can't prove it because of a lack of evidence but you can't deny it either because, as far as I know, no such evidence exists that suggests that what they said is not possible . I could be wrong though, I'm no expert on the subject. If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No. But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X". How to fix when you get the "there is no "X""? Add "It's supernatural". Or some crap like that. You can speculate with anything - unicorns, god, Greek gods, etc. And that's just bullshit. |
| LUL |
pitilesscnsr said: one-more-time said: kyuuzo2 said: I believe in evolution but, I do believe god as a 'force' not a being. Its not something that makes choices or has a good or evil side or gives what people thinks. Its something that affects whats around it just by being there. I'm always puzzled when it comes to ones own definition or the image of god. Why would you believe in such thing in the first place, when there's no rational* reasoning behind it and most important - evidence. Why? I think when they said 'I believe in god as force not as a being' they were implying that they do not believe in god as a being that has its own will, can exercise its will upon others and can think for itself, rather god is just something that ultimately led to the creation of the universe (because of its existence, not because it just chose to) and everything in it. I think their argument is pretty logical, you obviously can't prove it because of a lack of evidence but you can't deny it either because, as far as I know, no such evidence exists that suggests that what they said is not possible . I could be wrong though, I'm no expert on the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance |
 |
one-more-time said: kyuuzo2 said: I believe in evolution but, I do believe god as a 'force' not a being. Its not something that makes choices or has a good or evil side or gives what people thinks. Its something that affects whats around it just by being there. I'm always puzzled when it comes to ones own definition or the image of god. Why would you believe in such thing in the first place, when there's no rational* reasoning behind it and most important - evidence. Why? There is no evidence supporting any current gods so why not? |
Hexis said: Zmffkskem said: Gravity is a THEORY. I don't want to say this but as a scientist, one must be clear. If anything it would be the 'law' of evolution, too. If one accepts one theory as law, all other theories, if undiscarded, must be treated as 'laws.' I'd like to commend Hitchens for a more correct view. I'm not saying it's correct, but it's not even wrong, and that's better than being wrong. not my words, but they describe my train of thought. "In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream. We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc. While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall. A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world." I think I know Newton's Law well enough. It would simply follow an equation which we express using the real line. It's as good as the 'laws of mathematics,' which is a theory. The axioms determine the theory and the results. If the axioms hold, then fine, you have a dandy theory. If not, the theory is fully discarded. It's still a theory. Standard model tells me there are gravitons. Can you see them? Touch them? Are they self-evident that they are there? Does one measuring them mean that the 'graviton' is not something else? It's still a theory. You do not prove theories. |
「みんながいるからだ。」 － 棗鈴 |
pitilesscnsr said: I apologize, let me retract and rephrase what I wrote before. I believe that such a possibility exists, as long as there in no evidence to the contrary, that god is not what we believe god to be in the contemporary meaning of the term./quote] The concept of "possibility" is merely an intellectual judgment with no actual existence in any real sense. There's a higher possibility that a meteor will land on my head tomorrow than a possibility of god. See, I can play possibility game too, just like "You can't unprove" game. God is an idea and as such, anything that eventually led to the creation of the universe (be it a particle or force or whatever) could be called god. We can call organisms to be gods, in a sense that they give life. But the problem here is that apologists will try to fit in their god, just like it happened with Evolution, when there is no goddamn need for it. I hope any of it made sense, I'm going to get sleep, have not slept for 35h+. |
| LUL |
Day2Dream said: one-more-time said: kyuuzo2 said: I believe in evolution but, I do believe god as a 'force' not a being. Its not something that makes choices or has a good or evil side or gives what people thinks. Its something that affects whats around it just by being there. I'm always puzzled when it comes to ones own definition or the image of god. Why would you believe in such thing in the first place, when there's no rational* reasoning behind it and most important - evidence. Why? There is no evidence supporting any current gods so why not? None. Lets talk about the scientific evidence (what other evidence is there?). First and foremost, science deals with the natural; it has absolutely nothing to say about the supernatural - Gods, fairies, ponies (sorry bronies), etc. - in its endeavors. Everything that can be explained by the laws of physics is 'natural'. But what about that which is inexplicable by those laws, is that magic? No. A scientist will withhold judgement until further evidence, data, and a proper theory arises; and until that happens, the answer is "I don't know". So in the end, there can be no direct scientific evidence for the supernatural. If you think you have evidence for God, then lets see it. This place is getting boring. Hexis said: While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. Then one might as well call it the Law of Evolution, and the Theory of Natural Selection. |
Hitchens said: Then one might as well call it the Law of Evolution, and the Theory of Natural Selection. evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Hexis said: Hitchens said: Then one might as well call it the Law of Evolution, and the Theory of Natural Selection. evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. Saying something will remain a theory is actually a compliment; no idea in science exceeds the status of theory. Of course no theory is considered to be complete, since new evidence is always coming in and there is a chance of falsifying it - if it can't be falsified, it's not science. As for your comment on evolution, the current evolutionary theory includes natural selection; so it does have explanatory power, that's part of what a scientific theory is. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. What did you mean when you said, it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. Do elaborate. |
Hexis said: Except we can actually observe evolution with microorganisms, viruses and such. It's entirely possible to do that in a lab.evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. |
Baman said: Hexis said: Except we can actually observe evolution with microorganisms, viruses and such. It's entirely possible to do that in a lab.evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. the theory is observable. but the reason evolution cannot be a law: a law would require a readily observable and repeatable outcome evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen. what happens is anyone's guess because its random chance which genes will cross over, independent assortment and such. |
HexisMay 7, 2012 4:28 PM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Hitchens said: Saying something will remain a theory is actually a compliment; no idea in science exceeds the status of theory. Of course no theory is considered to be complete, since new evidence is always coming in and there is a chance of falsifying it - if it can't be falsified, it's not science. ^ common sense |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Hexis said: Baman said: Hexis said: Except we can actually observe evolution with microorganisms, viruses and such. It's entirely possible to do that in a lab.evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. you cannot repeat the same outcome. how many times do i have to say it? evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen. what happens is anyone's guess because its random chance which genes will cross over, independent assortment and such. Actually, evolution has plenty of predictive utility; for example: According to evolutionary theory, humans should share a lot of their genome with chimps. This was a prediction made by evolution, and what you know, it turned out to be correct. Humans share >98% of their genome with chimps, as predicted by evolution. Of course you can't predict what an organism will evolve into - imagine that, being able to predict the future! - its absurd to think otherwise. Take general relativity for instance; it tells us how a star reacts to the gravity of neighboring stars, but it would be insanity to try and predict where the star will be in 100 years - there's too many variables. My point is that you can cherry pick and say, "evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen", but that doesn't undermine evolution. Of course you can't predict what will happen, there's too much chaos. Just like being unable to predict the location of a star in its galaxy in the future doesn't undermine general relativity, not knowing what a microorganism might evolve into doesn't undermine evolution. |
| ok i feel like you are compeletly lost. lets go back a few steps you said: Hitchens said: Hexis said: While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. Then one might as well call it the Law of Evolution, and the Theory of Natural Selection. here you said based on my logic, evolution could be a law. but obviously you havent understood my logic, so i attempted to say why evolution couldnt be law when i said :- Hexis said: Hitchens said: Then one might as well call it the Law of Evolution, and the Theory of Natural Selection. evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. then you said: Hitchens said: Hexis said: Hitchens said: Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. What did you mean when you said, it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. Do elaborate. my elaboration:- Hexis said: evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen. what happens is anyone's guess because its random chance which genes will cross over, independent assortment and such. now the above elaboration is meant to illustrate how evolution cannot be a law. and i dont know how any of this has any relevance to what’s being discussed above.... Hitchens said: Actually, evolution has plenty of predictive utility; for example: According to evolutionary theory, humans should share a lot of their genome with chimps. This was a prediction made by evolution, and what you know, it turned out to be correct. Humans share >98% of their genome with chimps, as predicted by evolution. Of course you can't predict what an organism will evolve into - imagine that, being able to predict the future! - its absurd to think otherwise. Take general relativity for instance; it tells us how a star reacts to the gravity of neighboring stars, but it would be insanity to try and predict where the star will be in 100 years - there's too many variables. My point is that you can cherry pick and say, "evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen", but that doesn't undermine evolution. Of course you can't predict what will happen, there's too much chaos. Just like being unable to predict the location of a star in its galaxy in the future doesn't undermine general relativity, not knowing what a microorganism might evolve into doesn't undermine evolution. yes evolution has many many predictatory qualities, hell its a theory to describe how things evolve, if you cant predict things based on the evolutionary model you must be fairly dense. again you dont move debate forward, merely side step it. =.= and lol where does the assumption of undermining evolution come from xD |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Hexis said: you said: Hitchens said: Hexis said: While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. Then one might as well call it the Law of Evolution, and the Theory of Natural Selection. here you said based on my logic, evolution could be a law. but obviously you havent understood my logic, so i attempted to say why evolution couldnt be law when i said :- Hexis said: Hitchens said: Then one might as well call it the Law of Evolution, and the Theory of Natural Selection. evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. then you said: Hitchens said: Hexis said: Hitchens said: Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. What did you mean when you said, it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. Do elaborate. What I meant was this: that evolution happens is a fact, so according to your definition (or as I understood it) would be called a law; the explanatory bit then comes from natural selection, so according to your definition (or as I understood it) would be called a theory. Hexis said: my elaboration:- Hexis said: evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen. what happens is anyone's guess because its random chance which genes will cross over, independent assortment and such. I responded to it as a stand alone comment, seeing how you posted that as a response to someone else. Edit: I notice that you edited and added the clarification bit to the original version of that comment to Baman an hour after you posted it. Maybe that's why I mistook it for a comment to him and not to my original confusion about your idea regarding law/theory. By that time I had already posted my response to your initial comment without the following part: the theory is observable. but the reason evolution cannot be a law: a law would require a readily observable and repeatable outcome ******* and i dont know how any of this has any relevance to what’s being discussed above.... There was a misunderstanding, so I asked you to elaborate. And why wouldn't it be relevant? This thread is partly about evolution. Hexis said: Hitchens said: Actually, evolution has plenty of predictive utility; for example: According to evolutionary theory, humans should share a lot of their genome with chimps. This was a prediction made by evolution, and what you know, it turned out to be correct. Humans share >98% of their genome with chimps, as predicted by evolution. Of course you can't predict what an organism will evolve into - imagine that, being able to predict the future! - its absurd to think otherwise. Take general relativity for instance; it tells us how a star reacts to the gravity of neighboring stars, but it would be insanity to try and predict where the star will be in 100 years - there's too many variables. My point is that you can cherry pick and say, "evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen", but that doesn't undermine evolution. Of course you can't predict what will happen, there's too much chaos. Just like being unable to predict the location of a star in its galaxy in the future doesn't undermine general relativity, not knowing what a microorganism might evolve into doesn't undermine evolution. yes evolution has many many predictatory qualities, hell its a theory to describe how things evolve, if you cant predict things based on the evolutionary model you must be fairly dense. again you dont move debate forward, merely side step it. =.= How exactly am I side stepping? I responded to your claims that, it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. and evolution says how the microorganism will evolve. not what will happen. assuming they were critiques of evolution. and lol where does the assumption of undermining evolution come from xD A valid assumption on my part based on the context you brought it up in. |
HitchensMay 7, 2012 5:52 PM
one-more-time said: To disprove a specific god is easy but the abstract concept of a god you cant disprove at all really. The god of the bible definitely can not be real according to how the bible describes "him" simply because an all powerful all knowing all loving being would not create such a flawed world (earthquakes from the techtonic plates for example) and such a god would not allow or create such pain and suffering that is a contradiction to how they define what god is supposed to be. So god is either not all powerful or not loving. Yet if you talk about a less specific version of a god or gods you have nothing to work with.If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No. But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X". How to fix when you get the "there is no "X""? Add "It's supernatural". Or some crap like that. You can speculate with anything - unicorns, god, Greek gods, etc. And that's just bullshit. Dont diss unicorns, especially since there are diseases that cause horn growth a unicorn very well could have existed. |
| @Hitchens yea, what originally i had written for Baman could be taken out of context, i only realized after i had posted it. i didnt edit it an hour later, just a few minutes. and it elaborated on the same statement, so i didnt feel like i had to repeat it again for you. i assumed you could read my response to Baman but i do admit i should have just done it to start with. and how are you side stepping? you are assuming that "it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome." means that evolution has no power to predict. and you write 3 paragraphs saying how evolution has the basic power to predict, but like other theories there are too many variables to predict what exactly will happen to a organism. but to completely understand that statement, you have to pay attention to the word "repeatable" im not saying evolution has no power to predict. evolution gives you a a observable predictions like Baman said in lab with bacteria. but each subsequent observation has the potential to be different. evolution doesnt have a model to say what is going to happen. just how it will happen. therefore we cannot, in a sense, "repeat" an evolutionary process. and when taken in context, it means unlike other laws that can tell you exactly what will happen time and time again. evolution cannot, so it cannot be a law. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Baman said: Hexis said: Except we can actually observe evolution with microorganisms, viruses and such. It's entirely possible to do that in a lab.evolution is an attempt to explain the how. it doesnt give us a readily observable and repeatable outcome. evolution will stay a theory. True, you should read up on the work of Dmitri Belyaev. In just 10 generations of selective breading, he was able turn the wild silver fox in to a tame, and visible different bread of fox. Oddly enough, the differences between the tame foxes and the wild foxes includes many of the same morphological differences we see between wolves and dogs. Turns out that when you select for tameness, you get a whole bunch of physical changes as well. So yeah, Belyaev demonstrated evolution in action. |
      |
More topics from this board
» is being self-independent the only goal a person should focus on?FruitPunchBaka - 20 minutes ago |
1 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
12 seconds ago |
|
» Most painful experience in your lifeST63LTH - Yesterday |
26 |
by Simple_Y
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» I might be going away for awhileThe-Nsider - 5 hours ago |
12 |
by _Ako_
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you think the revolution of robots, machines and AIs will happen this century?Absurdo_N - Yesterday |
25 |
by Zedlin
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Any professional artists here?DesuMaiden - Yesterday |
14 |
by Zedlin
»»
1 hour ago |