Welcome to Gaia! ::


Doubtful Dreamer
LoveLoud837
-your first point explains the exact same thing I said with different words. I don't follow why you would make that a point of argument when you restate what I say in a different way. It is like we are on the same page but you're trying to outprove me? Just weird.


You claim that neither a theory nor a hypothesis can be tested when a theory is rather heavily tested and a hypothesis revolves around performing a test. Re-reading your statement, however, it may have been that you do understand this and the wording chosen was just unclear.

Quote:
- There aren't that many logical loopholes needed to connect the two, in fact none are needed except the fact that our schools are required to not teach creation.


How do you explain starlight and the long term consistency nature that comes with it without exploiting a logical loophole?

Quote:
Enter God, who creates all the different kinds of animals (changing the definition of kind to the commonly used system of kingdom, phylum, order, etc. doesn't make it false, it means you changed the x variable's name to a or something along those lines).


Changing what a "kind" is based upon what has been observed is fairly dishonest, however. Saying this or that speciation event doesn't count because it didn't change "kinds" explicitly relies upon the lack of a proper, strict definition of "kind." Instead, what a "kind" is just keeps climbing the classification tree, which is a non-argument where you have changed your definitions to avoid having to address the point.

Quote:
From these different kinds, genetic variation occurred with the eventual loss of genetic information and manipulation of breeding and environmental factors leads to the creation of new species that have not gained genetic information, as supported by science unless aided by the 'god' of time.


Where is there information lost?

Quote:
Example of Creation evolution: start with wolf, obtain through the decrease of genetic information the coyote, dingo, border collie and many other variations til you get to the chihuahua.


How does this signify the loss of genetic information? A border collie and a chihuahua have nearly identical genomes as far as I can tell.

Quote:
Creationists are not anti-science,


If rejecting the basic assumption of science is not anti-science, I do not know what is. You can exploit logic to create a universe that looks the same as what science describes, but this still requires the rejection of science if you are to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. The two are fundamentally incompatible.

Quote:
and can fit facts into the model.


Being able to make things fit through the use of extraneous assumptions is not really science. It is kinda the opposite of science.

- The stars were created, it doesn't make sense to have 'delayed gratification' of seeing the stars. It makes more sense that when they were created, they appeared. Of course, the velocity of light is bound to the elementary equation Vf =Vi +at. The final velocity of course is the speed of light. The rest of the formula is subjectively a differential equation, that science assumes is constant. Imagine then an instantaneous Vi of infinity, and an instantaneous change to the current light velocity levels. Without concrete proof, it cannot be proven that God didn't instantaneously make many of the stars instantaneously visible by Earth, and its a moot point to argue on grounds of no concrete evidence one way or another. The only thing you have is the current levels of light.

-Kinds allow for speciation. Most people could answer the 'who does not belong' question between a wolf, a coyote, a husky and a banana. Galapogos island speciation goes along with the science of creation. Birds change into other birds. Turtles into other turtles.

-information is lost when through reproduction it does not exist in the DNA code. This is easily seen by a Punnett Square and should have been learned in middle school/high school biology.

-'Science's' assumptions are religious in nature.
1) The origin of time, space, and matter in the big bang. As you know, the big bang only describes the moments after it happened. The origins of matter or energy is a chicken/egg problem consuming many thinkers, not actual data and hard conclusions. Also, this is an unrepeatable process, just like God's abilities.

2) Chemical evolution, making elements from hydrogen, the supposed material made/composed from the big bang. Iron can't be produced from fusion.

3) Origin of Stars and planets. We haven't observed the origin of these.

4) Origin of life. This is debated as having to do with aliens, comets, lightning strikes, etc. It has never been observed, and can't be replicated to be observed.

5) Macroevolution - the change from one kind of plant/animal to another. Changing from something like a dog to a non-dog. This has never happened and can't be observed.

6) Microevolution- where we come together, changing inside of kinds. Dogs to different types and variations, like curly/straight hair, bigger/smaller, calm/hyper.

That is 5 out of six in a religious, have to believe it because we can't prove it, things in science about evolution.
LoveLoud837
- The stars were created, it doesn't make sense to have 'delayed gratification' of seeing the stars. It makes more sense that when they were created, they appeared. Of course, the velocity of light is bound to the elementary equation Vf =Vi +at. The final velocity of course is the speed of light. The rest of the formula is subjectively a differential equation, that science assumes is constant. Imagine then an instantaneous Vi of infinity, and an instantaneous change to the current light velocity levels. Without concrete proof, it cannot be proven that God didn't instantaneously make many of the stars instantaneously visible by Earth, and its a moot point to argue on grounds of no concrete evidence one way or another. The only thing you have is the current levels of light.


Science does not assume the speed of light is constant. The spectral lines in the most distantly observable parts of the sky require the speed of light to be constant. But you seem to be making a very, incredibly massive and unfounded assumption that the laws of physics have changed in a wholly undetectable way. That is a rather large logical loophole you are exploiting there.

Quote:
-Kinds allow for speciation. Most people could answer the 'who does not belong' question between a wolf, a coyote, a husky and a banana. Galapogos island speciation goes along with the science of creation. Birds change into other birds. Turtles into other turtles.


And when something gets too different, "kinds" changes to the next level up. This is exactly what I was saying. Before, it was species, but the information on speciation has been spread around enough that it got bumped up to thee next level. The "kinds" argument is entirely based on it being poorly defined.

Quote:
-information is lost when through reproduction it does not exist in the DNA code. This is easily seen by a Punnett Square and should have been learned in middle school/high school biology.


That is not a loss of genetic information as that may lead to a net increase in genetic information, just some of it is duplicated. A loss of variation is inequivalent to a loss of information. If you are implying that genetics for a specific trait are lost through such processes and selective pressures, well, you are describing evolution in its entirety.

Quote:
That is 5 out of six in a religious, have to believe it because we can't prove it, things in science about evolution.


Why did you miss the biggest assumption: "What is observed is what actually happened." This is the problem with the starlight data. You are saying this stuff happened which makes the data set a lie. Making the data set a lie is a fundamental rejection of this principle. As for the specifics of your points, you are either highlighting instances where science says "I don't know, go figure it out" or for which you find the evidence unconvincing because it is not real-time footage of a turtle growing wings. The former are not assumptions as an assumption generally involves assuming something, not saying "I don't know the answer." The later are not scientific assumptions as they are conclusions drawn from the data set; that you do not like conclusions drawn does not make them assumptions.

Incredible Genius

13,100 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Millionaire 200
  • Contributor 150
LoveLoud837
Sandokiri

Creationism can't be a good scientific model, because what it postulates can't be tested after the manner of a hypothesis. To draw an analogy:

"A gust of wind knocked Jill over."
"A gust of wind spell knocked Jill over."
"A gust of wind literally from Boreas's butt knocked Jill over."

All three have the same effect - postulating that a sudden movement of air bowled our heroine over. However, the second proposes magic, and the third an a*****e deity's a*****e, as the source of the wind. Neither of these can be tested, unless we can establish the existence of the caster or the god at question. Thus science can't consider them, regardless of whether a given scientist believes in Belgarath or the Four Winds or whatever, or not.



This is exactly my point, that a scientist must find a secular, non-miraculous answer to origins.

So science will always take the assumption that there is no God, thus miracles are impossible. Everything is fixed, and you must find a logical answer that does not escape physical laws and can be tested (or it can't be tested, then you classify it as a theory or hypothesis depending on the amount of data that there is on the subject).

When people (incorrectly, of course) say that there isn't a single scientific evidence for the existence of God, that is because science works on that assumption. A rational, open-minded thinker would thus have to toss that assumption and do their own research to find the most plausible conclusion.

Remember that time when Christians thought that sickness was caused by Gods wrath due to sin? Turns out we have tiny organisms on this world that feed off of us. No God there, just another species. Remember how God supposedly promised that our free will wouldn't be interfered with? That means miracles aren't allowed to happen. The answers to our questions that we have found so far have ALWAYS been logical. You know why? Because we decided to quit assuming that God is the reason for everything that happens and to take off the blindfold.
My answers are always straight, It's my religion that's a bit crooked to understand. You see it's not just a choice or a belief. It's not just go to church on Sunday and worship God, but it's a life style. So my answers are always straight, but for every one simple question their are thousands of complicated answers.

Dapper Reveler

Sandokiri
AA seems to be suggesting that all that's needed to understand the Christian answer is divine fiat. No background information, no theology, no apologetics, just a flick of a Bic from the third subset of God.
Does AA stand for Atheist Anonymous? Also, you can't be proven cells exists without understanding how to operate a microscope.

Sandokiri
"A gust of wind knocked Jill over."
"A gust of wind spell knocked Jill over."
"A gust of wind literally from Boreas's butt knocked Jill over."
Neither of these can be tested, unless we can establish the existence of the caster or the god at question.
What of Jill's existence? If she exists then I'd venture to say you are the God in question and that the minor god Boreas as well as magic is a divine fiat example of your existence.

Sandokiri
However, there's a difference. You're being presented with a problem like 4n^2 + 20 = 40. When you arrive at n = ±sqrt(5), the teacher's telling you that the correct answer is Hemoglobin, and cites Radicals 5:26 from The Lessonplan. Daring to suggest that it's instead ~±2.236 (and thus that The Lessonplan could err on what sqrt(5) actually is) results in the teacher blowing both of your arms off with a 30.06 and leaving a permanent mark on your school record, mandating future teachers to never allow you to pass the class until the heat death of the universe.
You are skipping the steps as his teacher had by claiming his teacher as ludicrous for some unexplained reason, or for all we know at this point, you may be acting as your teacher which claims his teacher is ludicrous for a ludicrous reason.

Sandokiri
The theory of evolution is not a worldview, nor does it explain the origin of life - that's the various hypotheses collectively called abiogenesis. Evolution explains how the diversity of lifeforms has occurred, and continues to occur.
Continuance is a world view.

Dapper Reveler



Quote:
Therefore it cannot be used, for instance, by people not liking that they are being asked to read more about global warming if they deny it. In addition, it is not fallacious to tell, for example, a creationist to read more on evolution, if they clearly do not understand what they are talking about, and are basing their evidence on false premises.

lol

Friendly Friend

Riddle me this. If your good is so real, then why isn't he real? Checkmate theists.
Let me break it down like this. God is supposed to be perfect. So perfect that I should not be able to conceive of anything greater. A god which can be proven is better than a god that cannot. God doesn't manifest in any way that can be verified through empirical means. Thus, a perfect deity cannot exist.

If god were real he would be easily proved, history wouldn't be filled with a thousand different religions. We say that theists dance around questions because you guys avoid logic through mental gymnastics. If you apply logic and reason consistently you would be agnostics. You don't take the existence of Santa on faith, why should you accept the concept of heaven without evidence? Because if you admit to yourself that you have no basis for belief in religion, you lose immortality. If Santa isn't real, no big deal. If God and heaven aren't real you lose a piece of yourself. So you compartmentalize; and hold these ideas to different standards of evidence. Hell, at least Santa left you presents at a predictable time and place, that's more evidence than god has given you.
Avgvsto
Does AA stand for Atheist Anonymous? Also, you can't be proven cells exists without understanding how to operate a microscope.

AA = anonymous attributes, who posted in this thread before.

Also, it is possible to demonstrate the existence of cells without understanding how to use a microscope - even if you hold that only direct observation is sufficient evidence to count as proof, you can look while someone else operates the microscope. (Actually, based on the analogy, this would explain quite a few things. But I'll leave that alone for now.)

Quote:
What of Jill's existence? If she exists then I'd venture to say you are the God in question and that the minor god Boreas as well as magic is a divine fiat example of your existence.

I have a plan laid out for if I were to win the lottery. I don't have one for apotheosis; please don't try to deify me, because I am not prepared. yum_puddi

And it's an example of how competing hypotheses are evaluated, not necessarily an actual case of someone named Jill being knocked down by wind.

Quote:
This is irrelevant. His argument presupposed that the teacher was logical.

The presupposition is flawed, then, because the teacher isn't allowed to be logical; he's only allowed to follow the lesson plan. If the lesson plan says that sqrt(5) = Hemoglobin, the teacher is expected (by contract) to teach that, regardless of logic.

Leaving that aside, I don't agree that in every case, a straight answer demands grounding in a particular set of relevant axioms, let alone a special insight that is only accessible to people who accept that set of axioms unconditionally.

If the question is of how you interpret a text - or if some answer is rooted in an interpretation of a text - it's easy enough without knowing the complete history of those who interpret it as you do. Only the question of "why do you interpret it that way" needs the further grounding.

Quote:
Continuance is a world view.

I've never heard of that being the case, unless you mean uniformitarianism --- which is part of a worldview, not one by itself, and a rather useful part at that. It's grounded in experience, and has consistently demonstrated its utility for modelling and interacting with perceived reality.

Dapper Reveler

Sandokiri
AA = anonymous attributes, who posted in this thread before.
I'm still reading it as Atheist Anonymous because I find it funny.

Sandokiri
Also, it is possible to demonstrate the existence of cells without understanding how to use a microscope - even if you hold that only direct observation is sufficient evidence to count as proof, you can look while someone else operates the microscope.
Then it is that we can know that which is invisible or trust those who can witness the invisible even without proper ability to do so ourselves?

Sandokiri
And it's an example of how competing hypotheses are evaluated, not necessarily an actual case of someone named Jill being knocked down by wind.
And they are evaluated with the evidence that you provide as their axiom. Of these evidences the existence of Jill is just as provable as the existence of magic.

Sandokiri
The presupposition is flawed, then, because the teacher isn't allowed to be logical; he's only allowed to follow the lesson plan. If the lesson plan says that sqrt(5) = Hemoglobin, the teacher is expected (by contract) to teach that, regardless of logic.
This is the teacher's contract, "a person who teaches, especially in a school." definition from google. His teacher's contract is one who is logical but might skip things and appear not to be. Yours is that they must repeat things that are heard.

Sandokiri
Leaving that aside, I don't agree that in every case, a straight answer demands grounding in a particular set of relevant axioms, let alone a special insight that is only accessible to people who accept that set of axioms unconditionally.
An answer that is relevant to axioms would require access to those axioms.

Sandokiri
--- which is part of a worldview---

I'm not quite sure what "worldview" means in these contexts, I am only assuming that it is defined by a thing that is verging on the philosophical and impossibly proven theoretical, which uniformitarianism certainly is.

Sandokiri
I've never heard of that being the case, unless you mean uniformitarianism--- which is part of a worldview, not one by itself, and a rather useful part at that.
Useful for those worldviews it pertains too.
Avgvsto
Then it is that we can know that which is invisible or trust those who can witness the invisible even without proper ability to do so ourselves?

Assuming there's any reasonable way to filter for trustworthiness among the several different invisibles postulated. Therein lies the trick, though. Hyper-short form: no, we can't know that.

I can get help using microscopes from scientists all over the world, including places hostile to each other; and if I'm viewing the same type of sample (let's say a drop of my blood each time,) then I will see the same thing in the lens.

If I learn how to use the microscope, I can reproduce those observations.

I can't do that with the invisible, because the scientists of different "schools" of science are using different microscopes - or the same microscopes with different scientific methods - and each is saying that what I observe will definitely be the actual invisible and that the others are either incomplete, deluded, or deceptive.

Worse, I'll almost certainly peer into one of them myself, and obtain something different from the others, whereupon the scientists will regard me as wrong.

Finally, unlike with the science microscope, the invisible has a stake, that many of these scientists separately assert: that if I do not see as they say I should, Bertrand Russell will lock me in his teapot and drop me into a volcano on Io.

Quote:
This is the teacher's contract, "a person who teaches, especially in a school." definition from google. His teacher's contract is one who is logical but might skip things and appear not to be. Yours is that they must repeat things that are heard.

When it's a teacher of religion, yes, it is doctrine before logic. And a contract is not a definition. A contract is an agreed-upon set of rules under which some number of parties should operate in the pursuit of a given goal.

Quote:
An answer that is relevant to axioms would require access to those axioms.

And if someone were to say the axioms are inaccessible unless they're first accepted - and not arguendo, but unconditionally?

Quote:
Useful for those worldviews it pertains too.

Which is all of them that I'm aware of. The difference is that theists not only operate using uniformitarianism, but link its functionality to the continual maintenance of their preferred deity. Some also apply it to their deity, declaring It to be unchanging.
Shinji-EVA[01]
Riddle me this. If your good is so real, then why isn't he real? Checkmate theists.
Let me break it down like this. God is supposed to be perfect. So perfect that I should not be able to conceive of anything greater. A god which can be proven is better than a god that cannot. God doesn't manifest in any way that can be verified through empirical means. Thus, a perfect deity cannot exist.

If god were real he would be easily proved, history wouldn't be filled with a thousand different religions. We say that theists dance around questions because you guys avoid logic through mental gymnastics. If you apply logic and reason consistently you would be agnostics. You don't take the existence of Santa on faith, why should you accept the concept of heaven without evidence? Because if you admit to yourself that you have no basis for belief in religion, you lose immortality. If Santa isn't real, no big deal. If God and heaven aren't real you lose a piece of yourself. So you compartmentalize; and hold these ideas to different standards of evidence. Hell, at least Santa left you presents at a predictable time and place, that's more evidence than god has given you.

God gave Sodom and Gamorrah time to allow searching for someone that could prove the city worthwhile. God gave the name Methuselah to the longest-living human ever, with a name that people knew judgment was coming because of it.

God stuck the Israelites in the wilderness for 40 years, a trip that should only have lasted 11 days. Rahab the harlot knew this and pleaded with them to allow her to join them, while Jericho was reduced to rubble from the sound of horns. Her blood was then in the line of Jesus.

God gives you time to know that you are old enough to realize you are not ignorant of Him. You know there is no excuse for not believing. And He through His mercy is still giving you time. The advancement of technology is giving you even more time, and according to John Kerry, we are in safe times with low murder rates.

You are being given this time, and you are squandering it. Without belief, this 'piece of yourself' will be in hell. A lake of fire, complete darkness, screaming, gnashing of teeth. Eternity, not this vapor of 70 years or so of grace God has given your sinful body. Repent.

Friendly Friend

LoveLoud837
Shinji-EVA[01]
Riddle me this. If your good is so real, then why isn't he real? Checkmate theists.
Let me break it down like this. God is supposed to be perfect. So perfect that I should not be able to conceive of anything greater. A god which can be proven is better than a god that cannot. God doesn't manifest in any way that can be verified through emprical means. Thus, a perfect deity cannot exist.

If god were real he would be easily proved, history wouldn't be filled with a thousand different religions. We say that theists dance around questions because you guys avoid logic through mental gymnastics. If you apply logic and reason consistently you would be agnostics. You don't take the existence of Santa on faith, why should you accept the concept of heaven without evidence? Because if you admit to yourself that you have no basis for belief in religion, you lose immortality. If Santa isn't real, no big deal. If God and heaven aren't real you lose a piece of yourself. So you compartmentalize; and hold these ideas to different standards of evidence. Hell, at least Santa left you presents at a predictable time and place, that's more evidence than god has given you.

God gave Sodom and Gamorrah time to allow searching for someone that could prove the city worthwhile. God gave the name Methuselah to the longest-living human ever, with a name that people knew judgment was coming because of it.

God stuck the Israelites in the wilderness for 40 years, a trip that should only have lasted 11 days. Rahab the harlot knew this and pleaded with them to allow her to join them, while Jericho was reduced to rubble from the sound of horns. Her blood was then in the line of Jesus.

God gives you time to know that you are old enough to realize you are not ignorant of Him. You know there is no excuse for not believing. And He through His mercy is still giving you time. The advancement of technology is giving you even more time, and according to John Kerry, we are in safe times with low murder rates.

You are being given this time, and you are squandering it. Without belief, this 'piece of yourself' will be in hell. A lake of fire, complete darkness, screaming, gnashing of teeth. Eternity, not this vapor of 70 years or so of grace God has given your sinful body. Repent.


I'm responding from my phone so I won't waste time on the particulars, even thought I have much to say on those stories. I think it fair to simplify what you said into the argument that the bible claims that nonbelievers are without excuse. Particularly, because he allows adequate time for us to repent.

Let me first begin by telling you that I was born with a heart defect that runs the risk of sudden death if I over exert myself. It was expected that by age 16, I would need invasive heart surgery. I was raised to believe in jesus. And I was very faithful. Maybe I was rewarded for my faith because several years have passed and it never got to the point that I required surgery. progression of my condtion stopped at age 14. I still believed in god until I was 20.
Quite the opposite of what you proposed, it would appear that god gave me too much time. Time for me to learn how to think rationally. He could have taken me to heaven whenever he wanted. I was ready, I had faced my mortality many times.

It's not too late to change my mind, but I just require more evidence now.
An all knowing god should know the level of evidence that I require for belief.
An all powerfull god could satisfy my requirement with great ease.
A benevolent god would want me to know and worship him correctly and would reveal himself to me so as to save me from the torments of the hell.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum