Good, stay there. We don’t need any more arrogant immigrants coming over here.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
This is getting tedious. Learn how science works.
Theories are never proven.
Theories aren’t just random ideas that scientist pull out of their asses after a night at the pub.
Then why do you treat theories as fact?
Science offers nothing better than theories. Science wants theories to be tested and invalidated and replaced with better theories; that’s how the whole process works.
Then since the theory of macroevolution has been invalidated by a lack of demonstrated intermediate species, why hasn’t the theory been replaced with a new theory? Why? Because they don’t follow the scientific method you seem to know nothing about, but worship like a god.
[/quote]
Well said!
Xenaphobe. I guess you have plenty of arrogant people there already
[quote]DPH wrote:
haney wrote:
it would be a debate form an an informal fallacy
haney’s argument: If there is a God he would give proof that he exist, since I don’t see any proof there must not be a God.
hmm…
your argument is not a categorical syllogism nor are there any negative premises so it can’t suffer from an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise fallacy…
this is what I think is wrong with your argument…
[/quote]
I was just giving an example of something similiar to what I might come across. As I said it was a rough example.
I think you got the general gist. That saying things like I believe\dis believe in God because of logic is pretty much a bad argument. It has no real foundation. I also think statements for/against faith using logic is nothing more than an attempt to make the other side seem illogical.
[quote]
anyways…maybe I’m still misunderstanding your argument or maybe I’ve made some glaring mistake in my analysis…I’ve never been good at thinking so it’s certainly possible that I mest up…
what do you think?[/quote]
I think you went into more detail over this than any other poster so it must have been something that peaked your interest. I am glad if nothing else it might have got your creative juices going. I can gladly take comfort knowing that I sparked that. 
[quote]miniross wrote:
Xenaphobe. I guess you have plenty of arrogant people there already[/quote]
You have that right!
[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
This is getting tedious. Learn how science works.
Theories are never proven.
Theories aren’t just random ideas that scientist pull out of their asses after a night at the pub.
Then why do you treat theories as fact?
Science offers nothing better than theories. Science wants theories to be tested and invalidated and replaced with better theories; that’s how the whole process works.
Then since the theory of macroevolution has been invalidated by a lack of demonstrated intermediate species, why hasn’t the theory been replaced with a new theory? Why? Because they don’t follow the scientific method you seem to know nothing about, but worship like a god.
Well said!
[/quote]
you tried this on the ID thread, please don’t try it here. On a separate note, this thread is now basically worthless.
So just to be clear:
who here is an atheist? Who is agnostic? and who is here to take part in the inquisition?
I’m a non believer who doesn’t identify with the term atheist, though it is what the bible-bangers call me.
[quote]orion wrote:
pookie wrote:
Theories aren’t just random ideas that scientist pull out of their asses after a night at the pub.
Asimov!
Do I win anything?
[/quote]
Huh… Did Asimov say that? Couldn’t find it on the web.
Here’s on from him I like:
“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”
Nicely put.
[quote]orion wrote:
pookie wrote:
Theories aren’t just random ideas that scientist pull out of their asses after a night at the pub.
Asimov!
Do I win anything?
[/quote]
Ah, found it:
“Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” -Isaac Asimov
Close enough I guess. You know what they say about great minds thinking alike. 
[quote]aslater wrote:
swordthrower,
I respect your position but some of your arguements I would argue are suspect. you discount the list because it is from the discovery institute? What is wrong with the discovery institute?[/quote]
Yes I discount it because it is from the Discover Institute. If you go to a Kia dealership and the salesperson shows you a list of mechanics who think Kia’s are the best car on the market, are you going to believe it? The Discovery Institute is trying to sell an idea, and so they use the same advertising tactics of any business. They take a vague statement like “the complexity of life cannot be explained solely by natural selection, etc” and make it sound like all those scientists are ID supporters, which is probably not the case. Of course scientists have doubts about evolution, because it is not a complete theory, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they support ID.
[quote]
I would look at the list of scientists given. Some of these guys are the most respected in their chosen fields. Do your research and look at the scientists presented. [/quote]
Do you honestly expect me to look up each of the scientists on the list? I’m sure some of them are well-respected, but the fact is that it is a tiny number compared to the total number of degree-holding scientists out there. And frankly, there are a lot of chemists and physicists on the list, which begs the question are they qualified to even make an informed decision about evolutionary biology?
Are these still Dr. Ross’s words, or yours. I can’t tell if you quoted him for just the first paragraph or not. Anyhow I’m not sure what the point is. If there are no local violations of the 2nd law, then how are we walking, talking, etc. If you take the human body as a system, then the 2nd law is constantly violated, but there is a flow of energy both into and out of the human body, so the total entropy is increasing.
And who proposed that standing out in the sun will cause you to evolve? That analogy is juvenile at best. That’s like saying “I’ve been around for 50 years and haven’t evolved, so evolution must not be true.” What point was being made there?
And the “flight of fancy” argument is ridiculous. Is it a flight of fancy that atoms can arrange themselves in crystals. And is it not a “flight of fancy” that some all-powerful being set things in motion? One person’s idea of “fancy” may not be the same as another’s.
We also have to remember that evolution does not claim to answer the question of how life originated. That is still unanswered and probably will be for quite a while. Evolution is a model describing how organisms change over long periods of time. It seems like the argument always goes back to the origin, but nobody is making any claims about the origin.
I’d be interested to know how you feel about the formation of the solar system and the Earth, and how that ties in with your ideas on evolution.
Anyhow, this thread is beginning to deteriorate. The bickering and bible quotations are more than I can handle. I get it! God exists because the bible says so. And of course, all the overwhelming evidence provided for the existence of God just blew me away. What was I thinking all these years? Screw it, I think I’m going to go read about LIFTING!
I guess we can all agree on one thing: Squats, Deadlifts, and eating big.
peace.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Drivel.
This is getting tedious. Learn how science works.
Theories are never proven.
Theories aren’t just random ideas that scientist pull out of their asses after a night at the pub.
Science offers nothing better than theories. Science wants theories to be tested and invalidated and replaced with better theories; that’s how the whole process works.
Your view of science has absolutely no relation with the real thing. I really hope you’re just beginning high school or something.
[/quote]
it is no use trying to explain what science IS to non-scientists. These are the same people who have no more exerience with science than what was forced onto them in high-school if they were required to take it.
And for those of you who think that General Relativity is “just a theory,” this is for you!
It turns out our Intelligent Designer likes to make things fall, too!
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
It seems like the argument always goes back to the origin, but nobody is making any claims about the origin.
[/quote]
I suspect it has something to do with the title of Darwin’s book “Origin of Species”. Few people seem to actually have read it. I have and you are right, he doesn’t make any claims about the first cause of life. At hindsight, the title wasn’t very good.
So I am composing a list of all the things I don’t understand that must be becasue ‘God’ made it that way.
-
Why my wife has to have the toilet seat down when she isn’t using it.
-
Why professional wrestiling is entertaining to people who live in the south and 13 yr olds everywhere else
-
How 51% of Americans voted for GWB a second time
-
Why Andy Warhol was considered an artist
-
What the lyrics to Louis, Louis really are
-
Where spam comes from and why people eat it
-
Why I look stupid with a bald head
-
Why I am surrounded by stupid people everywhere I go
There here is the short list. These things are because God made it so and thus have no need to question it anymore.
Im a theist; I believe their is a god; or superior force. Except I don’t believe in any mainstream religion, i’m just spiritual in myself.
Now lets say something controversial:
I hate religion; it is in YOU; not a book.
A couple of thoughts:
If you look at the size of the world and the universe are all of us trying to “figure things out” or acting like we have all the answers no more the equivalent of an ant on an ant hill contemplating its existance based on its ridiculously small existence.
We will be alive for what 70 to 80 years not even a blink of an eye relative to the existence of the Earth and the Universe. Few if any of us will travel the world. And we all think we have all the answers and could possibly comprehend why things happen the way they do. Not very likely.
Has life ever been created out of a blob of non-living material in any science lab?
What was here in the begining? Why does the universe even exist in the first place?
And in reference to the strife caused by organized religion. Lets tally up the numbers of Mao, Pott, Stalin and Hitler( Hitler was not a christian he may have been in his childhood but not the one that killed millions of people few people know that he also burned and destroyed churches and killed christians as well as jews basic all around asshole. On a side note he was an enviromentalist/socialist) We are not talking thousands were talking millions upon millions killed in the name of communism or the “state.”
There is no utopia. There is no perfect way it is in human nature to destroy ourselves. All we can do is make the best with what we have.
Just my two cents hope it made some sort of sense. And do not take the above to mean we can not ponder our existence and its meaning just it that it may be a very narrow view considering a human beings small existence on this train ride known as life.
Jeep
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Then why do you treat theories as fact? [/quote]
Because it’s the closest thing we’ve got next to the factual truth.
Because even if theories such as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can’t be entirely right because they don’t mesh with each other, individually they work well enough to give us transistors, computers, lasers, GPS, cellphones, electronic microsopes, etc.
Because even if evolution, which is more of a collection of many theories about various aspects of biological phenomenas throught time is not perfect, or does not yet explain everything; it still enabled progress in biology, genetics and biochemistry.
Everyday, you enjoy the benefits of science. When you make a phone call; when you post your ignorance on the net; when your grandma gets heart surgery and gets to live for a few more years… Our comfortable lives are all possible because of scientific progress.
That’s why I trust theories enough to treat them as “fact”. Because it works.
It is quite hypocritical of you to denounce science and it’s theories while you sit your ass confortably amidst everything sciencitific progress has enabled; using many times everyday the very fruits of science to go and tell people that the Bible and faith are all that’s required…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So just to be clear:
who here is an atheist? Who is agnostic? and who is here to take part in the inquisition?
I’m a non believer who doesn’t identify with the term atheist, though it is what the bible-bangers call me.[/quote]
like I posted earlier, I am somwhere on the agnostic side of things.
There is a Buddhist saying that goes something like this, “Do not confuse the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.” Essentially this is saying don’t confuse the signs for what they are pointing to. Religion is meant strictly to be a sign pointing to God. Most of you are equating religion and God as the same thing. It is when you start worshipping the sign instead of what it is pointing to that you get Jihads and supposedly Christian countries invading other countries to conform them to their ideals. I promise this is not from God. In fact Jesus’s teaching on non-violence are very obvious (although we Christians are the only ones who don’t see it). Even Gandhi recognized this about Christians.
God is not something to be owned and therefore something that does not need to be defended. It is the gods that we have created in religion that need to be defended.
To have a problem with God simply because of the way religion chooses to present Him is a mistake. Religion is a human construct and every one of us has gotten it wrong (and right) to some extent.
I say this not to change anyone’s mind, but to caution you about confusing the finger and the moon. I believe that God is infinite and therefore the paths to God are also infinite. When it is time we will all be brought back to Him.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics argument holds no water. See the following:
The Miller-Urey experiment, for all its failings as far as creating a close approximation of Earth’s early atmosphere, certainly proved one thing. It is possible, even likely, to produce organic compounds and amino acids from inorganic compounds in a high energy environment.
An even simpler example of entropy failing to remove all order from a random system can be done in your kitchen. Toss some cooking oil in water. The oil will naturally form cells within the water. This is an instance where chemical self regulation trumps the literal predictions associated with entropy.
To anyone wishing to find a more detailed discussion on entropy and The Second Law of Thermodynamics, I highly recommend the following page. It is well laid out and written in plain language.
http://www.entropysimple.com/content.htm
Todd