ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 7th May 2012, 02:35 PM   #161
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,589
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
adaptation to the environment has been tested, ok, agree on that. Macro evolution however has not been tested, and never been observed.
This is false, for two reasons. First, "macro evolution" is merely accumulated microevolutionary changes, so your distinction is fictional. Second, IT HAS been observed. Ring species are the midpoint in one process of speciation. And the fossil record shows macroevolution quite clearly.

I've made my credentials in this conversation known. Please present yours. I don't need a full CV; just a brief list of the fields you've been paid to work in, or have gone through formal training in, will suffice. If you don't have any I'm not going to reject your statements; I'd just like to know the level at which I should address your concerns. If you're a geologist, cool, I can get into case studies on sedimentology and taphonomy and the like; if you can't tell a wackie from a packstone, I'm going to have to take a different direction.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:43 PM   #162
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,083
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
that is held by the vision that " we " is the center of all things, and the just " we " matter. The quest goes however deeper, and the question goes about what is the reason for our existence, where do we come from, where do we go, why are we here, what is the value of life, and so on. If a God creator does exist, then the question goes to : why did he create us ? what was his purpose with creation ?
If a God creator does exist, then the question goes to : why did he create tapeworms, typhoid and cholera ? what was his purpose with creation ?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 02:45 PM   #163
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,083
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
adaptation to the environment has been tested, ok, agree on that. Macro evolution however has not been tested, and never been observed.
Uh, compare a chihuahua with a great dane, whats your issue again?

Oh your mean something else? Do you mean changes in morphology or what exactly do you mean, speciation?

So since you used the word coherently define macro evolution.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 03:33 PM   #164
elipse
Master Poster
 
elipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
lets resume it : the most i hear is : " we don't know".

Ignorance at its fullest.

based on the scientific ,philosophic, and theologic knowledge we do have in regard of many aspects of life, to come to such a conclusion, is truly not satisfying ( at least to me ). I don't think this answer is honest.
1. When scientists say "we don't know" it means "Yay! We get to work on this awesome problem! This is what we like best in the world!" (Or, if the question is outside their feild, "Yay! Someone else gets to work on this awesome problem, and I get to read about what they find as they go! Aside from working on my own awesome problems, that's what I like best in the world!")

There's nothing unsatisfying about having awesome problems to think about and work on. So the answer is honest. Even from me, and I'm not even a scientist, just someone who loves it that other people are working on these problems using their brains and cumulative knowledge/experience.

2. How does the alternative explanation end up at anything other than "we don't know?" If you say "The universe and the world and man were created by god," then how do you answer ANY further question? How? How did god create the universe? Did he use tools? Where did he get the materials?

Can you answer any further question about the universe, once you posit that god made it? If not, why is YOUR version of "I don't know" satisfying to you, but you find a scientist's version of "I don't know" so unsatisfying?

3. Ignorance at its FULLEST? I don't agree. Which do you think is the more ignorant statement: "I think this circle of mushrooms with a bare patch in the middle is caused by fairies having a dance here--they plant the mushrooms in order to make themselves invisible."
or
"I think this circle of mushrooms with a bare patch in the middle is caused by mushrooms in the center dying out, but I can't be sure yet, because I haven't been able to see it happen. I'm going to take pictures of the circle and see if it grows and how."

The first answer is arguably a "more complete" answer, in that the speaker thinks he has the whole answer, but the second, I would argue, is far less ignorant, even as it acknowledges that it does not have the whole answer.
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue
elipse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 03:35 PM   #165
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,433
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
adaptation to the environment has been tested, ok, agree on that. Macro evolution however has not been tested, and never been observed.
Micro evolution is macro evolution, just on a shorter time scale.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 03:37 PM   #166
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,433
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
if you can't tell a wackie from a packstone,
Ban this filth!
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 03:37 PM   #167
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Second, IT HAS been observed. Ring species are the midpoint in one process of speciation.
Speciation is not macro evolution. Under macro evolution i understand change above species. That has not been observed, and the evidence points clearly out that this is not possible.


Quote:
And the fossil record shows macroevolution quite clearly.
amazing. Please present the evidence.

Quote:
I've made my credentials in this conversation known. Please present yours.
what matters, are facts, not credentials.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 03:42 PM   #168
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,433
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Speciation is not macro evolution. Under macro evolution i understand change above species.
You think macro evolution is a change in genus? Can you cite somewhere where it's defined as such? Can you even define the word "genus"?

Quote:
That has not been observed, and the evidence points clearly out that this is not possible.
Amazing. Please present the evidence.

Quote:
what matters, are facts, not credentials.
And you have neither. And Dinwar has both.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 03:46 PM   #169
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,374
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
If a God creator does exist, then the question goes to : why did he create tapeworms, typhoid and cholera ? what was his purpose with creation ?
In a 2005 BBC radio interview famed naturalist (no pun intended) and wild life film maker David Attenborough talked about a response he gave to criticisms he had received that he never acknowledged God in his nature documentaries:

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy"
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 03:51 PM   #170
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,722
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Very true. The nebular theory of planetary formation was hypothesized by Kant, but it was also supported by a huge array of evidence, including evidence from on Earth, evidence from Moon rocks, evidence from other planetary bodies in the form of pieces that have hit Earth and in the form of data from probes, and evidence from astronomy in the form of actually observing early planetary formation in nebulas. There's a huge amount of data supporting the idea that the Earth formed as part of the Sun's nebula by the accretion of smaller particles.

To believe in pretty much any other mode of planetary formation is to reject a very large amount of data, which directly calls one's credibility into question (as if citing a Creationist source didn't do enough of that).
At the risk of going somewhat off-topic the history of the nebular model is one of my favourite examples of self-correction in science; eighty odd years ago the nebular hypothesis fell out of favour with cosmologists as there appeared to be serious problems with the model. Hence a new model, that better fitted known facts, the catastrophic model was developed; in which another star passed close to the Sun, tidal forces deforming the Sun's atmosphere so much that streams of gas escaped its gravity, condensed as dense clouds of matter and eventually formed the planets. This took a few thousand years rather than the billion or so predicted by early versions of the nebular hypothesis.
Better models caused the re-introduction of the nebular model and later developments, e.g. elemental distribution, pretty much ruled the catastrophic model out.
As an aside this is why the catastrophic model appears in a lot of 'Golden Age' sci-fi, such as that of Smith [it's a major plot point in the Lensman series] and Weinbaum.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
any suggestion for other alternatives ?
Yes. Several.

Originally Posted by realpaladin View Post
GIBHOR, the reason you hear so often 'we don't know' is because the 'yet' is silent.

First there needs to be established that it is necessary to have a 'first cause'.

Just as the people 200 years ago had no clue how to build an atom bomb, we do not have a clue if something is really needed to 'cause' existence.

As we have factually witnessed in the course of documented history, nature actually is quite different from how we just perceive it.

So our 'need' for a first cause may just as well be analogous for our 'need' to feel that time is constant and the speed of light *should* be different for different observers.

The answer 'I don't know' does not in any way invalidate any other knowledge.

This is analogous to your car breaking down and your son asking you 'daddy, what is wrong?'. You answering 'I don't know' does not suddenly mean nothing is wrong. It just means you do not know the 'cause' *yet*
In 200 years time we may be creating new universes.

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Ah, but it can, you also can't make a star go supernova, you can test theory against observations.
Well there are, IIRC, some ideas about how to induce a supernova but they're not possible yet. Big gamma-ray lasers were suggested.

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how does it help to believe in the theory of evolution, if it cannot be tested ?
It has. Many, many, many times. God botherers just ignore this inconvenient fact.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Ban this filth!
Are you channelling the Daily Mail?
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 03:55 PM   #171
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by elipse View Post

There's nothing unsatisfying about having awesome problems to think about and work on. So the answer is honest.
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".

Quote:
2. How does the alternative explanation end up at anything other than "we don't know?" If you say "The universe and the world and man were created by god," then how do you answer ANY further question? How?
Aknowledge that God is the best explanation for our existence, does not mean, scientific research has to stop there. We can continue to find out about the amazing creativity, beauty and intelligence the creator created, and use it for our needs.

Quote:
How did god create the universe? Did he use tools? Where did he get the materials?
What if we don't know ?

Quote:
Can you answer any further question about the universe, once you posit that god made it?
Is it needed ? once the truth has been detected, no further search is needed. That is my case. I am satisfied with knowing and aknowledging that the God i believe in created all things. Actually, it makes me happy, since that knowledge gives me meaning and value of my life.


Quote:
If not, why is YOUR version of "I don't know" satisfying to you, but you find a scientist's version of "I don't know" so unsatisfying?
It depends, on which question you answer " we don't know ".
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:05 PM   #172
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Amazing. Please present the evidence..
http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/DNA.html

Quote:
Over the decades that I have considered the creation/evolution debate, I have asked numerous biologists if they have ever known of even one such gene mutation that was 100% positive in nature (meaning that there were no negative side effects such as having the genes for eyes, ears, fingers, toes, and etc.) None of us have ever heard of such a new gene.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:08 PM   #173
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Uh, compare a chihuahua with a great dane, whats your issue again?.
thats micro evolution, not macro evolution. macro evolution is evolution above species......
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:15 PM   #174
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,602
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
Why naturalism? Lego. I never had astral blocks to build on.
Switch to Minecraft. There's probably a mod for astral blocks out there for it.
__________________
The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one.


Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:16 PM   #175
Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
 
Lord Emsworth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,996
Ugh ... Creationism.
Lord Emsworth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:18 PM   #176
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
In a 2005 BBC radio interview famed naturalist (no pun intended) and wild life film maker David Attenborough talked about a response he gave to criticisms he had received that he never acknowledged God in his nature documentaries:

"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy"
and how should the fact of these animals to exist, be evidence that God does not exist ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:19 PM   #177
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,139
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".

How on earth can something without a shred of evidence be considered plausible? If you are defining the universe as something that needs a cause, and defining something supernatural as that cause, that isn't evidence, that isn't plausible, that is just a tautology.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:34 PM   #178
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,374
Basically God gets an "out" because he's defined that way. You define something absent of evidence as something outside the realm of evidence and then use that completely arbitrary and made up definition to argue for its existence. It's rather silly.

All "Supernatural" copout concepts work that way. Like a said before it's semantics at best, and since I consider arguing semantics to be one step above swallowing a fully opened Swiss Army Knife, that should tell you how I feel about something where semantics is the best reason for it.
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:39 PM   #179
Seismosaurus
Illuminator
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,945
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
adaptation to the environment has been tested, ok, agree on that. Macro evolution however has not been tested, and never been observed.
Well that's because there is no such thing.
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:44 PM   #180
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,022
1. The rise of new species has indeed been noted both in the wild and in a lab. If you are referring of the changing of species a la "cat into dog" then you won't find it because that would be totally contrary to what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

2. I was kind enough to answer your loaded question. Please respond to my post.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:55 PM   #181
elipse
Master Poster
 
elipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".
What question is it for which a natural explanation isn't plausible? You went from asking about whether we were satisfied with the answer "I don't know", which is a general question, about how we, as individuals, feel about uncertainty, to something very different: accusing scientists of hiding behind "I don't know." You have to defend this accusation. You can't just say it and have it be true.



Quote:
Aknowledge that God is the best explanation for our existence, does not mean, scientific research has to stop there. We can continue to find out about the amazing creativity, beauty and intelligence the creator created, and use it for our needs.
But IN PRACTICE that's exactly what happens: scientific research stops...and, in fact, you yourself admit this just two sentences later...


Quote:
What if we don't know ?
Well, that's the entire dang point! If you say God did it, you don't know ANYTHING beyond that. So why is that "I don't know" okay with you, but a scientist's "I don't know" is unsatisfying?



Quote:
Is it needed ? once the truth has been detected, no further search is needed. That is my case. I am satisfied with knowing and aknowledging that the God i believe in created all things. Actually, it makes me happy, since that knowledge gives me meaning and value of my life.


It depends, on which question you answer " we don't know ".
...riiiight here. So you WILL be happy with "I don't know", so long as "I don't know" includes god, and you're saying that you will STOP there. That just so long as god is a part of it, you don't need to look any further. So when you say "I don't know" you mean "I don't know, and I am content not to look for an answer."

That's just the opposite of what scientists mean when they say "I don't know."

Oh, and maybe the rest of us get "meaning and value" out of life by learning more, asking questions, contributing to society, etc. We create our own meaning, instead of needing a supernatural entity to create it for us.
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue
elipse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:59 PM   #182
elipse
Master Poster
 
elipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Basically God gets an "out" because he's defined that way. You define something absent of evidence as something outside the realm of evidence and then use that completely arbitrary and made up definition to argue for its existence. It's rather silly.

All "Supernatural" copout concepts work that way. Like a said before it's semantics at best, and since I consider arguing semantics to be one step above swallowing a fully opened Swiss Army Knife, that should tell you how I feel about something where semantics is the best reason for it.
Oh, well, then, the way forward is clear! We just re-define the universe to be something that doesn't need god to create it, and we can stop all this silliness!

...what do you mean science doesn't work that way?
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue
elipse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 04:59 PM   #183
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".



Aknowledge that God is the best explanation for our existence, does not mean, scientific research has to stop there. We can continue to find out about the amazing creativity, beauty and intelligence the creator created, and use it for our needs.



What if we don't know ?



Is it needed ? once the truth has been detected, no further search is needed. That is my case. I am satisfied with knowing and aknowledging that the God i believe in created all things. Actually, it makes me happy, since that knowledge gives me meaning and value of my life.




It depends, on which question you answer " we don't know ".
Please provide evidence that your god exists.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:00 PM   #184
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,834
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
and how should the fact of these animals to exist, be evidence that God does not exist ?
This is not evidence that your gos does not exist. Neither is it evidence that your god exists.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:09 PM   #185
elipse
Master Poster
 
elipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,328
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
thats micro evolution, not macro evolution. macro evolution is evolution above species......
As far as I can tell, this is just a modified "god of the gaps" kind of argument, which relies on time being long and human life being short.

Tell me if I'm wrong: the argument USED to be that micro evolution was real, but no one had ever seen one species evolve into a new species. (Forget that there's lots of evidence besides watching something happen in front of one's eyes.)

Then those dang scientists had to go and create experiments so that they could watch short-lived life forms evolve in new directions and form new species. Darn them!

So the new argument is that, well, okay, one species can evolve in a way that creates a new species, but it CAN'T CAN'T CAN'T evolve so much that a descendent could be a new genus! This argument is totally solid, they think, because the amount of time that would take is too long and besides, by the time scientists have observed evolution that far, they'll have brand new arguments that ignore all the evidence that doesn't happen in front of their eyes.


Did I miss anything?
__________________
either elipse is innocent, or is playing the shrewdest, ballsiest scum I've seen to date.--ZirconBlue
elipse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:09 PM   #186
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 36,410
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
naturalism is the foundation of strong atheism, which declares, that God most probably does not exist. Please present good reasons, why you believe this world view to be the best explanation for our existence.
Why? Naturalism as you use it is merely a definition and one which you have not in your OP been extremely clear as to what specific definition you attribute to it.


Without relying on unclear/poptentialy flawed terms, I will say this re: the OP.
Within the limits of our ability to attain correctness through the use of scientific methods and the results of those methods to know, science has explained nicely the existence of things necessary for our existence and the path through which we came to exist given those things - all without any necessity for positing a creator/creating unit actively or passively aiming at that existence as it's goal.

Hoping this finds you well,
Yr. not-so-obedient servant, Fuelair (his mark)
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:21 PM   #187
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,994
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible,
Such a claim is not supported by the scientific literature.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, but that will remain purely a belief. A belief contradicted by fact.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:30 PM   #188
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,994
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
how does it help to believe in the theory of evolution, if it cannot be tested ?
Excellent.
Seeing as you tacitly admit that a supernatural explanation is beyond testing,
this would imply that a natural or a supernatural world would be indistinguishable from each other.

In this way, why should I believe in a more complex theory when a simpler one suffices?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:30 PM   #189
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 3,374
If it's not a natural explanation it's not an explanation.

Supernatural means its beyond understanding, so how can attributing a supernatural cause to something in any possible way lead to us understanding the universe better?

Saying something has a supernatural cause is just a ponderous, pretentious, intellectually dishonest way of saying "I don't know."
__________________
- Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count.
- In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness.
- Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries with that.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:43 PM   #190
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,572
Quote:
I asked: "How did god create the universe? Did he use tools? Where did he get the materials? "
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
What if we don't know ?
Then we'd like to find a path to finding out. There seem to be lot of ways to move forward on the naturalism front -- ways to inquire, ways to accept and reject ideas... How am I to do this with the supernatural?

I am curious how I might investigate the God hypothesis. Here are some things I have already tried:

1) Reading religious texts. They do not seem to reflect any world I am familiar with. They are full of fanciful stories. Some religious texts, of recent origin have pretty good documentation that points to fraud (Mormons, Scientology). I can't tell the truth value of a story in one text and the story in someone else's text.

2) Prayer. This seems to me to be pretty much like talking to myself. I've never been able to get any real result, nor have I been able to get others, purportedly more faithful and expert than myself, to demonstrate any observable result worth mentioning.

3) Forums. I've heard a great many arguments but they all boil down to believing in a story that doesn't hold up under examination. The idea of God + "what I already accept" doesn't get me any more than "what I already accept."

I'm perfectly willing to explore the idea, but it ought to be a worthwhile idea, shouldn't it? What does God add?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:48 PM   #191
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 28,139
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Then we'd like to find a path to finding out. There seem to be lot of ways to move forward on the naturalism front -- ways to inquire, ways to accept and reject ideas... How am I to do this with the supernatural?

I am curious how I might investigate the God hypothesis. Here are some things I have already tried:

1) Reading religious texts. They do not seem to reflect any world I am familiar with. They are full of fanciful stories. Some religious texts, of recent origin have pretty good documentation that points to fraud (Mormons, Scientology). I can't tell the truth value of a story in one text and the story in someone else's text.

2) Prayer. This seems to me to be pretty much like talking to myself. I've never been able to get any real result, nor have I been able to get others, purportedly more faithful and expert than myself, to demonstrate any observable result worth mentioning.

3) Forums. I've heard a great many arguments but they all boil down to believing in a story that doesn't hold up under examination. The idea of God + "what I already accept" doesn't get me any more than "what I already accept."

I'm perfectly willing to explore the idea, but it ought to be a worthwhile idea, shouldn't it? What does God add?

Well said.
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:52 PM   #192
Quinn
Breathtakingly blasphemous.
 
Quinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,261
Here are what I find to be the two most telling posts in this thread:

Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
Are you happy with this answer ?
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
I am satisfied with knowing and aknowledging that the God i believe in created all things. Actually, it makes me happy, since that knowledge gives me meaning and value of my life.

This strongly suggests that your true motive is not honest intellectual curiosity at all, but rather personal comfort. Whether or not anyone is "happy" with any given answer has no bearing on whether that answer is true.
__________________
It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.
Quinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 05:59 PM   #193
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,994
Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
This strongly suggests that your true motive is not honest intellectual curiosity at all, but rather personal comfort. Whether or not anyone is "happy" with any given answer has no bearing on whether that answer is true.
"Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it."
-Tyrion
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 06:41 PM   #194
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,589
Originally Posted by GIBHOR
Speciation is not macro evolution. Under macro evolution i understand change above species. That has not been observed, and the evidence points clearly out that this is not possible.
You've obviously not read...well, let's just call it ANY paleontological literautre.

Quote:
amazing. Please present the evidence.
"Evolution:: The Triumph of an Idea." "Earth: A Portrait of a Planet". Skepoiski's Curve. pretty much all of the literature by Jablonski, Gould, Valentine, Eldritch, and Peter Ward. In particular, look at "Future Evolution"--it gives specific examples of paleontological evidence of macroevolution as you define it (you use the paleontological definition--the biological definition is pretty much "speciation"). Oh, and just for good measure, I'll toss in every single volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology and Tertiary Mammals of North America. You've got to dig a bit deeper with those volumes to see the evidence of macroevolution, but it's there. That should give you enough reading material for a while--and ALL OF IT provides evidence, most of it including specific formations and often outcrops that the information has been found in.

Quote:
what matters, are facts, not credentials.
True, but it's telling that you're unwilling to say what you know, particularly since I merely wanted to know what level of knowledge you have about evolutionary theory. I'm gonna go ahead and assume, for the rest of this conversation, that you know nothing about evolution except what Creationist websites tell you, since that's the only evidence you've cited thus far in this thread.

Quote:
I am satisfied with knowing and aknowledging that the God i believe in created all things. Actually, it makes me happy, since that knowledge gives me meaning and value of my life.
All of this is irrelevant--the only reason to believe anything is because it's demonstrably true. If it's not demonstrably true, it should properly be discarded.

Quote:
Its not honest to have figured out scientifically things, and when the evidence points out clearly that a " natural " explanation is not plausible, then instead of aknowledging that a " supernatural " cause is plausible, just escape with a " we don't know answer ".
But we HAVEN'T determined that natural explanations aren't good enough. In fact, we've found numerous alternative natural explanations for abiogenesis. You're simply ignorant of them, and assuming that your ignorance is universal. It's not.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:22 PM   #195
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
The "proposed scenario" is, if I'm following the conversation correct, the Nebular Theory of Planetary Formation and the Big Bang Theory. Several of us have pointed you towards evidence, including video evidence of what you consider unlikely. Hawking's books are a good general-public reference for the evidence for the Big Bang Theory (and many other oddities). Any introductory geology textbook (Earth: Portrait of a Planet is a good one) will list evidence for the nebular theory of planetary formation. You can also google pictures of actual nebula forming into planets. It's quite an exciting time for research into planetary formation, actually--there's more evidence now than ever before, and with the massive number of exoplanets discovered we're able to really test our concepts of planets in a way previously impossible to us.
http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot....on-theory.html


Quote:
The end result of all of this modification is that the nebula theory of planetary formation has been rendered unfalsifiable by the repeated patching. Being falsifiable is an important aspect of Science. The point is that instead of the usual scientific practice of abandoning theories that blow prediction after prediction, this one keeps being modified to explain away the prediction failures. It is getting to the point that no mater how contrary to the theory some new model will be created to get a planet from where the theory says it should be to where it is actually observed. The point is that by explaining away failed predictions makes a theory unfalsifiable and effectively unscientific.

Ultimately the reason for this is that the nebula theory of planetary formation the only naturalistic model left with that the only alternative explanation left being divine creation. The point is that the scientific establishment must protect this model at all costs and no discovery will be allowed bring it down.

GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:24 PM   #196
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
How on earth can something without a shred of evidence be considered plausible? .
It depends what you consider compelling evidence. What would convince you, and be evidence of Gods existence ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:29 PM   #197
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Then we'd like to find a path to finding out. There seem to be lot of ways to move forward on the naturalism front -- ways to inquire, ways to accept and reject ideas... How am I to do this with the supernatural?

I am curious how I might investigate the God hypothesis. Here are some things I have already tried:

1) Reading religious texts. They do not seem to reflect any world I am familiar with. They are full of fanciful stories. Some religious texts, of recent origin have pretty good documentation that points to fraud (Mormons, Scientology). I can't tell the truth value of a story in one text and the story in someone else's text.

2) Prayer. This seems to me to be pretty much like talking to myself. I've never been able to get any real result, nor have I been able to get others, purportedly more faithful and expert than myself, to demonstrate any observable result worth mentioning.

3) Forums. I've heard a great many arguments but they all boil down to believing in a story that doesn't hold up under examination. The idea of God + "what I already accept" doesn't get me any more than "what I already accept."

I'm perfectly willing to explore the idea, but it ought to be a worthwhile idea, shouldn't it? What does God add?
i am rather interested to see, what evidence you have for naturalism. thats what this thread is about.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:30 PM   #198
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,083
Originally Posted by GIBHOR View Post
It depends what you consider compelling evidence. What would convince you, and be evidence of Gods existence ?
What have you got?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:31 PM   #199
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post

All of this is irrelevant--the only reason to believe anything is because it's demonstrably true. If it's not demonstrably true, it should properly be discarded. .
So why do you not discard strong atheism ? or can you demonstrate that most probably God does not exist ?
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th May 2012, 08:33 PM   #200
GIBHOR
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
But we HAVEN'T determined that natural explanations aren't good enough. In fact, we've found numerous alternative natural explanations for abiogenesis. You're simply ignorant of them, and assuming that your ignorance is universal. It's not.
i keep waiting for good naturalistic explanations for the information contained in dna, homochirality, and other issues of abigenesis. So far, NO atheist has been able to present me compelling arguments for these issues.
GIBHOR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.