Recommended Posts
There is always a problem with proof via non-falisfiability. "Prove me wrong" is near impossible for things like that. For example, I posit to you that every person who dies in his or her sleep did so as a result of failing to wake up from a dream in which he or she was falling prior to impact. Prove me wrong.
That being said, I am an atheist. It doesn't mean that I don't see some similarities between the viewpoints of creation and evolution, etc.
For example, a key question that is asked is, "If God created everything, who created God?" A legitimate question. On the other side, "If the Big Bang created the universe, what created the Big Bang?"
Something must have come before God.
Something must have come before the Big Bang (though I understand that in some theories, time did not exist until the Big Bang, and thus "before the Big Bang" is a misnomer).
In both there is an element of speculation. I personally believe that the universe contracted from a prior iteration into a critical mass and exploded. Prove me wrong. The problem is that it isn't testable.
Evolution has its scientific proof. What, however, was the first satge of creation of life? We don't know. Miller and Urey were able to electrify "primordial ooze," which synthesized some organic acids. On the other hand, we cannot test any theory because we must make assumptions on the primordial makeup. We can have no degree of certainty of the "primordial" climate at the time of the first life when we don't even know when the first life occurred. They can probably narrow it down to within 100 million years or so, but that's a LONG time frame. (I wonder whether spontaneous generation of life and evolution are somethign to which quantum mechanics has been applied?))
There are questions with everything. We don't know with any degree of certainty what the origin of life is. So we have unfalsifiable theories.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
That being said, I am an atheist. It doesn't mean that I don't see some similarities between the viewpoints of creation and evolution, etc.
For example, a key question that is asked is, "If God created everything, who created God?" A legitimate question. On the other side, "If the Big Bang created the universe, what created the Big Bang?"
Something must have come before God.
Something must have come before the Big Bang (though I understand that in some theories, time did not exist until the Big Bang, and thus "before the Big Bang" is a misnomer).
In both there is an element of speculation. I personally believe that the universe contracted from a prior iteration into a critical mass and exploded. Prove me wrong. The problem is that it isn't testable.
Evolution has its scientific proof. What, however, was the first satge of creation of life? We don't know. Miller and Urey were able to electrify "primordial ooze," which synthesized some organic acids. On the other hand, we cannot test any theory because we must make assumptions on the primordial makeup. We can have no degree of certainty of the "primordial" climate at the time of the first life when we don't even know when the first life occurred. They can probably narrow it down to within 100 million years or so, but that's a LONG time frame. (I wonder whether spontaneous generation of life and evolution are somethign to which quantum mechanics has been applied?))
There are questions with everything. We don't know with any degree of certainty what the origin of life is. So we have unfalsifiable theories.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
The existence or non-existence of any spiritual being simply can not be proved. Why not? Because it cannot be experienced with our senses. Can you touch God using your hands? Smell God using your nose? Taste God using your tongue? See God using your eyes?
That's kind of the same logic that lawrocket is talking about. Yes, you can see the table, but where did it come from? I doubt you saw the actual forrest, mill, manufacturer, or distributor. Of course those things are all there somewhere. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
The real issue with science explaining our existance, for me, is at the sub-atomic level. Everything is differenct today than it was when I was in school and that wasn't too long ago. The string theories, multiple dimensions, teleporting electrons... it's all new and mostly theory. Those who claim they believe in science show just as much faith as Christians. It's just in different places.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
QuoteThose who claim they believe in science show just as much faith as Christians. It's just in different places.
only if you forget that science is about verifiable knowledge.
billvon 2,989
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>1. Evolution of new species is a proven fact.
Correct. It is as much a fact as, say, the 11 year solar cycle is a fact. We have observed it and quantified it, and others can repeat the experiment and see the same things.
>2. The origin of species is interchangeable with evolution.
The proper name "The origin of species" (or "on The Origin of Species") is a book, the first book Darwin published about evolution. It has indeed become synonymous with evolution.
The origin of species (not the book) refers to where new species come from. We have seen where approximately a dozen new species come from, so for those dozen, we have hard evidence of where their origin is. We have inferred the origins of the other species from that evidence and from a lot of other evidence (molecular biology, paleontology, archaeology, genetics, recorded history, selective breeding and geology, to name a few fields that have accumulated such evidence.)
>Either it is exactly the same as the observed evolution and thus proven.
Yes, in the cases I listed, new species originated through evolution. That is proven. We have not seen how other species originated and have inferred it.
Likewise, I am sure you have seen a lot of people being born. That would be hard proof that they were born on Earth. You might infer that therefore your roommate was born on Earth even though you did not see him born here, and indeed, that would be a wise choice.
Correct. It is as much a fact as, say, the 11 year solar cycle is a fact. We have observed it and quantified it, and others can repeat the experiment and see the same things.
>2. The origin of species is interchangeable with evolution.
The proper name "The origin of species" (or "on The Origin of Species") is a book, the first book Darwin published about evolution. It has indeed become synonymous with evolution.
The origin of species (not the book) refers to where new species come from. We have seen where approximately a dozen new species come from, so for those dozen, we have hard evidence of where their origin is. We have inferred the origins of the other species from that evidence and from a lot of other evidence (molecular biology, paleontology, archaeology, genetics, recorded history, selective breeding and geology, to name a few fields that have accumulated such evidence.)
>Either it is exactly the same as the observed evolution and thus proven.
Yes, in the cases I listed, new species originated through evolution. That is proven. We have not seen how other species originated and have inferred it.
Likewise, I am sure you have seen a lot of people being born. That would be hard proof that they were born on Earth. You might infer that therefore your roommate was born on Earth even though you did not see him born here, and indeed, that would be a wise choice.
billvon 2,989
>We don't know with any degree of certainty what the origin of life is. So we
>have unfalsifiable theories.
Agreed. Although I would add that the statement "life could not have evolved from lifeless materials" IS falsifiable by performing an experiment in which such an evolution is seen.
>have unfalsifiable theories.
Agreed. Although I would add that the statement "life could not have evolved from lifeless materials" IS falsifiable by performing an experiment in which such an evolution is seen.
QuoteQuoteSee my above post, but I could argue that your very existence is proof that there is a God.
I'd like to see you try....
He just did. But that's the end of the argument on his side.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
QuoteQuoteThose who claim they believe in science show just as much faith as Christians. It's just in different places.
only if you forget that science is about verifiable knowledge.
Like the string theory? Or general versus special relativity? Or creating matter from energy? Or the gravitron across 11 dimensions?
Verify away.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
billvon 2,989
>Like the string theory?
So far unverifiable.
>Or general versus special relativity?
Verifiable, and tested extensively. Every time you use GPS you see this in action.
>Or creating matter from energy?
Verifiable and tested. Matter has been created in accelerators when enough energy is pumped in.
>Or the gravitron across 11 dimensions?
So far unverifiable.
So far unverifiable.
>Or general versus special relativity?
Verifiable, and tested extensively. Every time you use GPS you see this in action.
>Or creating matter from energy?
Verifiable and tested. Matter has been created in accelerators when enough energy is pumped in.
>Or the gravitron across 11 dimensions?
So far unverifiable.
QuoteQuoteThose who claim they believe in science show just as much faith as Christians. It's just in different places.
only if you forget that science is about verifiable knowledge.
Exactly - that's where 'they' keep falling down. We can demonstrate 'science based stuff' - they, for the most part, can not demonstrate anything.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
QuoteQuoteQuoteThose who claim they believe in science show just as much faith as Christians. It's just in different places.
only if you forget that science is about verifiable knowledge.
Like the string theory? Or general versus special relativity? Or creating matter from energy? Or the gravitron across 11 dimensions?
Verify away.
Only fundamentalist Christians claim that we learned all we needed to learn 2000 years ago with the New Testament.
I don't have to explain to you that "theory" means work in progress.
skybytch 273
QuoteThat's kind of the same logic that lawrocket is talking about. Yes, you can see the table, but where did it come from? I doubt you saw the actual forrest, mill, manufacturer, or distributor. Of course those things are all there somewhere. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist.
But in this case, I have seen forests, mills, manufacturers and distributors. If I cared to, I could build a table myself.
QuoteThe string theories, multiple dimensions, teleporting electrons... it's all new and mostly theory. Those who claim they believe in science show just as much faith as Christians.
The idea that the world is round instead of flat was theory at one point. Those in Europe who claimed to believe in it were heavily persecuted by the primary organized religion of the place and time. And yet today anybody who insists that the world is flat would be considered insane. A hundred years from now, string theory and teleporting electrons very well may be on the same level as the round world is today.
We've explained the physical by attributing it to supernatural or spiritual forces for thousands of years. If someone is happy explaining the physical by invoking the supernatural, just as all of our ancestors did in Mesopotamia and Egypt and China, that's great - for them. But for those who want to understand what's really going on, religion doesn't compare to science.
pop 0
QuoteAgain, I do not think it fits Evolution, rather mutation.
Evolution IS mutation. Evolution has been proven. What hasn't been is creation, and the origins of consciousness. It is very possible to have been created by somehting beyond our comprehansion and still experince evolution. There, I argue both sides of the argument.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer
pop 0
QuoteSo does one saying that all things created like the universe, life, time, etc. are not proof that there is a God, it's all just happenstance.
All things are created, and therefore there is a creator. That creator is God.
Just so you know I bleive in a Higher Power, At the same time you havent proved that they were created. You assumed that they were. This is a rediculous argument.
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThose who claim they believe in science show just as much faith as Christians. It's just in different places.
only if you forget that science is about verifiable knowledge.
Like the string theory? Or general versus special relativity? Or creating matter from energy? Or the gravitron across 11 dimensions?
Verify away.
Only fundamentalist Christians claim that we learned all we needed to learn 2000 years ago with the New Testament.
I don't have to explain to you that "theory" means work in progress.
Ok. I never said we learned all we needed to learn. Learning about the world around us is important. My point is that all of the theories do not explain where we came from or how things really work.
It's always a "work in progress." You can't tell me where we came from or how things work because it's theory. Science is different today than it was 10 years ago and it'll be different 10 years from now. Which part of it do you believe in? I was taught there were three subatomic particles. That was verifyable and true at the time. It's not anymore. It doesn't make my teachers liars. That was the truth at the time. Now there are quarks and gluons. Why should we think there isn't something smaller?
I'm not saying that science is evil or doesn't produce results. I'm saying that it's constantly changing so I find it funny people put their beliefs into the truth of the moment; something that will undoubtedly be different in the near future.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
QuoteQuoteQuoteThose who claim they believe in science show just as much faith as Christians. It's just in different places.
only if you forget that science is about verifiable knowledge.
Exactly - that's where 'they' keep falling down. We can demonstrate 'science based stuff' - they, for the most part, can not demonstrate anything.
As far as where we came from; neither can you.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
I don't need to.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
WE are the Peoples Popular Front of Judea!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites