This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
299211
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's not true. Human macro-evolution has not been proved. That does not mean it's false.
Links between certain things and cancer have not been proved. That does not mean they are false.
A decent scientific journal etc will state clearly with the parameters etc.
lets say a study observe 1000 people who smoke frequent and 1000 people who don't smoke are studied. The people who smoke have X% more chance of getting lung cancer.
Studies shows that smokers have a higher chance of getting lung cancer.
it is then subjected peer review and further research/study before publicly published.
I'm not talking about things that have already been proven, like smoking and lung cancer. I'm talking about things like Styrofoam and cancer, nitrates and cancer. We're beginning to see correlation, but there is no evidence of causation yet. You would say the two are
not
related. I would say, we don't know, there is a chance either way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
Since then, nearly all criticisms of evolution have come from religious sources, rather than from the scientific community. Although most religions accept the occurrence of evolution, such as those advocating theistic evolution, some members still reject it in favor of creationism, the view that God created the world largely in its current form. The resultant creation-evolution controversy has been a focal point of recent conflict between religion and science.
You'll notice I said human macro-evolution. You should stop and read before replying.
Yes, you can ignore things until such a time as they are proved, but that does not make them false, that makes them indifferent.
like i said, its a looping argument.
That's not an argument that is a statement.
You haven't studied the history of scientific theory, have you.... scientific theories have been coming and going since man started banging stones together to make sparks.
source please?
Here's a handful that took me 5 seconds to look up.
* Flat Earth hypothesis. Although not a truly scientific theory, it was proved wrong by many scientific observations over a period of thousands of years, with evidence compiling and culminating in Apollo 11's images of a spherical Earth.
* Phlogiston theory. Created to explain the processes of oxidation - corrosion and combustion - it was disproved by discovery of the fact that combustion is the reaction of fuel with oxygen and that corrosion is caused by oxidation of metals and the formation of compounds.
* Geocentric theory of the solar system. Disproved by studies through astronomy, as well as the use of physics to predict occurrences that geocentrism could not. Whether Earth is really the centre of the universe remains to be seen, since we don't know exactly where the universe ends.
* The classical elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire and water). Disproved by the discovery of subatomic particles and the modern elements, as we know them today.
* Aristotle's dynamic motion. It was an attempt at explaining momentum and why certain substances behave in certain ways; it was linked to the concept of the classical elements. Disproved by Galileo.
* Ether as a carrier of light waves and radio waves. Disproved by study of the dual particle-wave nature of light, which means it does not in fact require a medium of any kind, and the simple complete lack of any evidence for such a substance.(Disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment.)
* Newton's corpuscular theory of light. While correct in many ways - it was the modern concept of the photon - it too was supplanted by the dual wave-particle theory of light that explains all aspects of it.
* Newton's Laws of Motion (which were improved upon by Einstein - while not really proved wrong, the were shown to be not quite right either. For example in relativity or on the very small scale they don't hold).
And if they take on the attitude that A though Z are not true because we have yet to prove that they are, there would be no advancement either.
However if science treats them all as possibilities it can then proceed to make sense of them all in light of data as we receive it.
A through Z is under language and does not claim to be science, thus is not subjected to the scientific methodology to be scientifically valid. whereas the pseudoscience which people is claiming to be science, is unable to withstand the scrutinizing.
WTF? Are you playing dense on purpose? You actually thought I meant letters? Haven't you ever heard of using letters as variables? It happens quite a bit in science....
Phenomenon A, Phenomenon B, etc.
there is a hypothesis that alien exist, and it is not approved by the scientific community to be a theory.
the majority of scientific community from your point of view =/= the real majority of scientific community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life
some people think that it might happen is because the universe is huge. there might be a possibility that there are places like earth which harbors living organisms somewhere out there, but our current technology are unable to get us that far to find them.
and may i remind you, it is just a hypothesis, not a theory, it is neither proven nor accepted as a scientific fact.
You're seriously claiming that the majority of the scientific community definitively claims that
extraterrestrial life does not exist
?
I'm going to ask this now...how old are you and what amount of science have you taken in your life? Because you really have next to no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but I'm very much invested in the scientific community (I took pre-med in college and my father is a doctor), and you have a very faulty view of science.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Blah Blah, stuff unrelated to this one argument...
And on the pantheon , if there were many gods then they would dispute why , would one of them say, does the sun go up there , i want it over there. and if they didn't they were so like each other that they agreed on all then , why they are like one.
What? That is completely unfounded! Why doesn't your God one day go, "Hey, it would be more Feng Shui if I put the sun over here"? They are Gods. Do not say "they would." Are you a God? Have you ever observed the behavior of any Gods? How can you say this? What proof do you have? How do you know they are not one big perfect family of Gods? Is it any less likely of one being being perfect?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
264711
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Asylu
If there is one god , he probably would have agreed with himself , i doubt there is a schizophrenic or bi-polar god.
Don't know about you, but if I was left alone, in an absolute void, with only the company of the bacteria that cover my skin (I am assuming that to God we are just that complicated) as the only life form that I had any interaction with, I would be just a little.....off.
Spend one week in total isolation and see what I mean.
Post by
TheMediator
No. Proof has nothing to do with doubt. Whether I'm able to convince you or not has no bearing on the fact that it is actually true. Take the .999 is congruent with 1 argument that was going around earlier. There is a factual truth there at persists whether people doubt it or not.
You don't understand. If there were direct overwhelming evidence that seemed to conflict with the idea that 1 = 2, then it would be irrational to still conclude that 1 = 2.
Anyways, the scientific method is merely being uncertain until scientific evidence leads one to conclude one a specific hypothesis is the most likely explanation.
The word "prove" should be stopped from being thrown around in this context, you don't prove anything, you just provide evidence that leads you to conclude based on a certain level of confidence that your hypothesis is more than likely correct. Evolution is "proved" in the sense you mean it to be, but there is still some level of doubt that exists, but its small enough to conclude that it is the most likely correct hypothesis. "Faith" as you seem to use it is merely being ignorant to all evidence and believing something regardless of the likelihood of that event.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
I think that would keep me busy.
Following a do-nothing policy... I'm not sure.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You don't understand. If there were direct overwhelming evidence that seemed to conflict with the idea that 1 = 2, then it would be irrational to still conclude that 1 = 2.
No, you don't get what we're talking about.
Take the example I gave...Extraterrestrial life. By wakka's reasoning, a scientist
must
deny that it exists. He thinks that not knowing something therefore makes it false according to science.
Post by
TheMediator
You don't understand. If there were direct overwhelming evidence that seemed to conflict with the idea that 1 = 2, then it would be irrational to still conclude that 1 = 2.
No, you don't get what we're talking about.
Take the example I gave...Extraterrestrial life. By wakka's reasoning, a scientist
must
deny that it exists. He thinks that not knowing something therefore makes it false according to science.
A true scientist will say that you cannot say that aliens exist, but he won't say that aliens do not exist. Although that may seem illogical to you, it is merely saying that one cannot conclude one way or the other about something without evidence.
You don't seem to understand how the scientific method works.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A true scientist will say that you cannot say that aliens exist, but he won't say that aliens do not exist.
That's exactly what I'm saying! And that's exactly what wakka is denying.
Let me quote, because you don't seem to take the time to read before posting.
Not being able to prove something does not mean that it should therefore be dismissed as false.
- i.e. the second part of your statement up there
science & skeptics etc = all is false until proven true.
- i.e. contradicting the second part of your statement up there.
Post by
TheMediator
Yeah, he's wrong, what's your point? I merely want to clarify how the scientific method does work. I read your posts and his and you two didn't seem to be getting anywhere so I figured I'd come and settle the matter.
Post by
Asylu
....
Discussing religion is pointless.
All anyone can ever bring up is Jesus.
There is more to religion than Christianity.
And I am done with trying to speak to people when the argument that they retreat to is "Because God said so".
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yeah, he's wrong, what's your point? I merely want to clarify how the scientific method does work. I read your posts and his and you two didn't seem to be getting anywhere so I figured I'd come and settle the matter.
Then don't say I'm the one being illogical just because you have a gripe against me, and then end up agreeing with me.
And the point of a debate is to demonstrate to the other person
why
they are wrong. We don't need some random person to 'come settle the matter.'
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
....
Discussing religion is pointless.
All anyone can ever bring up is Jesus.
There is more to religion than Christianity.
And I am done with trying to speak to people when the argument that they retreat to is "Because God said so".
Making generalizations about your opponents is pointless too.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.