Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Take the Atheist Challenge!!!
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 61 of 321 (107108)
05-10-2004 11:26 AM


I also Love when science can't explain things that happen to people, then document them as "miracles" lol.
Explain to me how you deny them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AdminNosy, posted 05-10-2004 1:15 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 66 by coffee_addict, posted 05-10-2004 2:07 PM riVeRraT has replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 62 of 321 (107122)
05-10-2004 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by riVeRraT
05-10-2004 11:26 AM


New Topic
It sounds like you may have the beginning of a new topic here.
May I suggest a re wording and then you may propose it.
There are many things which methodological naturalism (a basis for the scientific process) can not explain. I suggest that these may be considered to be real miracles. I would like to see how these can be denied.
Notice that I removed the reference to science documenting them as miracles. If you leave that in you will be expected to show such documentation and you will have a very difficult time doing so.
I think this would also work better if you gave some specific examples of what you are talking about. You may, alternatively, leave those for an early post of your own when you are asked for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 11:26 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 3:09 PM AdminNosy has not replied

fnord
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 321 (107123)
05-10-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by riVeRraT
05-10-2004 10:50 AM


Re: Let the deluge commence...
quote:
A true scientist would remain open to all possibilities, and not be one-sided.
Does that include creationist scientists too? If so, would such a person be open to the possibility that there may be no god? Me thinks not!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 10:50 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 3:11 PM fnord has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 64 of 321 (107131)
05-10-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by riVeRraT
05-10-2004 10:45 AM


riVeRraT writes:
How is evolution fact?
It has been observered to happen. Rrhain's T4 phage example is an excellent demonstration of it -- your incredulity notwithstanding.
That would make it proven, no?
No, because science isn't about proof, and if you were as familiar with science as you purport to be you should know that. Proof, as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. What science deals with is testable hypotheses and observational evidence.
Evolution has never been observed, if it has that is news to me.
It should be news to you -- especially since Rrhain just described to you a simlpe experiment that you could repeat yourself in order to observe evolution first-hand.
You call it evolution, what happened in your little experiment?
Ummm.... THAT'S evolution.
Is evolution proven, yes or no?
It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously it's not proven beyond creationists' doubts, but those doubts are unreasonable.
Is creation disproven, if so, how?
"Creation" is too vague. There are hundreds of different and mutually exclusive creation stories, and every one I've come across is positioned in such a way to make it impervious to confirmation or falsification. That's why creation hypotheses are scientifically useless.
Do you believe in life after death?
No.
Do you have kids?
What in the world does THAT have to do with anything?
How does evolution explain Love?
It's not supposed to explain love. Neither are the theory of gravity, quantum theory, nor the germ theory of disease. To ask such a question casts dubious shadows upon your claims to being scientifically literate.
the Pope is just another man to me. I could care less what the entire catholic religion has to say about God.
The point is that belief in God and acknowledgement of evolution are not contradictory, and your insinuations that it is have been sufficiently falsified by this counterexample.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 10:45 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Unseul, posted 05-10-2004 3:14 PM :æ: has not replied
 Message 73 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 3:27 PM :æ: has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 65 of 321 (107132)
05-10-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by riVeRraT
05-10-2004 9:05 AM


riVeRraT writes:
Creationism, was never taught as a science, so it was never on top.
That's because creationism AIN'T science. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Again I don't want to judge them, but they never taught it ot us like the TOE was just that, a theory. There were alot of things that were taught to us like fact, but they weren't.
It's called oversimplification. I have noticed that some teachers just don't want to go through the trouble explaining why scientists believe in certain things. The explanations are rather complicated.
Take the quadratic formula for example. Most teachers in pre-algebra would make the students memorize it and never show the students how they came up with the formula. However, after spending years studying math (my last level was differential equation) I can show you off the top of my head how they arrived at the quadratic formula. Some things you just have to take their words on it and then, when you are old enough, you can choose to accept it or not based on empirical evidence.
The strongest points of science, are the things that have been proven. Even then, it could all change with new discoverys. Is this a bad thing? Nope. But its not where I put my faith.
This is where I get a little cranky. Theories can never be proven. Get your freaking facts straight.
Everytime you feel like you know it all, go check yourself.
Please tell me the story of the bacterial flagellum.
Noone claims to know it all. In fact, if you ask a physicist enough question about gravity, he will admit to you that he doesn't know. No scientist in his right mind would say that he knows all. Only you dogmatic people claim such a thing.
And yes I am important, so are you.
Don't tell me that science isn't dying to find out why we are here. That statement shows that you are not being a true scientist. Science would love to learn everything about everything. as it should.
Science is very interested in finding out how we got here. But as to assigning a purpose, it's a philosophical question. Science doesn't care if there is a purpose or not. It only cares about the how and the when.
Read the strawmen thread. Trying to say that evolution has a purpose or direction is one of the creationist straw man.
I don't need a goddunit answer, since I already meet with him on a regular bases. People who know God, don't really look at science the same way you do. But that doesn't make science unneccsary.
I'm very afraid. I think I'll try to buy a bullet proof vest now.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 9:05 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 3:14 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 76 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 3:39 PM coffee_addict has replied
 Message 105 by Zachariah, posted 05-11-2004 2:10 AM coffee_addict has replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 66 of 321 (107134)
05-10-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by riVeRraT
05-10-2004 11:26 AM


Ratriver writes:
I also Love when science can't explain things that happen to people, then document them as "miracles" lol.
Explain to me how you deny them.
Two things.
1) Can you list some?
2) Science doesn't label them as miracles. It labels them as unknown for now. Nobody is claiming that he knows everything.
By the way, just a friendly gesture. You are digging a hole for yourself. If you want to stay on this forum and be taken seriously by people, you need to clean up your act. Few people now believe anything you said about you being familiar with science.
However, if you are another hit-and-run case, have fun digging.
This message has been edited by Lam, 05-10-2004 01:11 PM

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 11:26 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 3:33 PM coffee_addict has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 67 of 321 (107144)
05-10-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AdminNosy
05-10-2004 1:15 PM


Re: New Topic
Ok, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AdminNosy, posted 05-10-2004 1:15 PM AdminNosy has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 68 of 321 (107146)
05-10-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by fnord
05-10-2004 1:20 PM


Re: Let the deluge commence...
Yes absolutely. Remember my 80/20 rule.
Its a little hard for someone who has meet God to deny him, just like if I showed you an apple, and told you it wasn't. But if you are scientist, you must remain open to all possibilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by fnord, posted 05-10-2004 1:20 PM fnord has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 3:18 PM riVeRraT has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 69 of 321 (107147)
05-10-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by coffee_addict
05-10-2004 2:03 PM


Well sort of
That's because creationism AIN'T science.
But it was held as the current consensus by most of those who were the practicing scietists of the day up to about oh, roughly 200 or 300 years ago. So in that sense it was the science of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by coffee_addict, posted 05-10-2004 2:03 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by coffee_addict, posted 05-10-2004 4:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 321 (107148)
05-10-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by :æ:
05-10-2004 2:01 PM


Actually evolution could stand a chance at explaining love. Keep a pair bond, better chance of offspring survivng etc etc.
Just me putting forward my opinion that people never realise that evolution can effect behaviours too, not just physical adaptions.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by :æ:, posted 05-10-2004 2:01 PM :æ: has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 71 of 321 (107149)
05-10-2004 3:16 PM


To rhain, evolution is not fact like gravity.
Our existance is fact, and evolution tries to explain it.
I must say that I am getting ganged up on here. I do have a life, so I won't be able to reply as fast as you guys might like. I will eventually respond to all posts.
I am also going to limit myself to this thread, because of the intense amount of replies needed.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by coffee_addict, posted 05-10-2004 4:12 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 115 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2004 7:20 AM riVeRraT has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 72 of 321 (107150)
05-10-2004 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by riVeRraT
05-10-2004 3:11 PM


Possibilities
But if you are scientist, you must remain open to all possibilities.
Including the possibility that an individual is delusional which has been demonstarted to be true on some occasions.
While it is desirable to remain open to possibilities it is cleary ridiculous to be open to all possibilities. It is too expensive in time and resource to go chasing after every cockamamie idea that is proposed.
Each of us has to pick and choose as best we can. Science as a practive picks only those things which have some observableevidence to work with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 3:11 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 3:29 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 77 by riVeRraT, posted 05-10-2004 3:43 PM NosyNed has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 73 of 321 (107155)
05-10-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by :æ:
05-10-2004 2:01 PM


Sorry dude, I'm not buying it yet.
I would like all my questions answerd first, not just you telling me that is evolution because you think or feel it so.
Evolution better be able to explain Love because the first amino acids probably didn't Love each other, but who knows?
If you don't believe in life after death why would any of this even matter? The mere fact that you can think of the possibility of life after death is a sign that it could possible exist. To completely deny it shows your unopen mind. Everything else we think exists, usually turns up sooner or later. Funny how that works?
because the answers are inside of you already, IMO.
Having kids can and will teach you alot about life that you may not know. However this is a probability, and it does matter for my own research.
Evolution if it is correct would prove the Bible wrong, no? Then if there was a God how would we know who he is? We were created into existance, not evolved. But maybe you came from apes, I don't know j/k.
No hypotheses are scientifically useless. A true scientist knows this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by :æ:, posted 05-10-2004 2:01 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by :æ:, posted 05-10-2004 5:23 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 89 by jar, posted 05-10-2004 5:43 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 74 of 321 (107156)
05-10-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by NosyNed
05-10-2004 3:18 PM


Re: Possibilities
It is also too expensive to try and disprove one theory all the time.
It seems that scientist only look for evidence to fit one description all the time.
What about all the other evidences of creation, and the earth not being as old as carbon dating would have you believe? You should know what they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 3:18 PM NosyNed has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 75 of 321 (107159)
05-10-2004 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by coffee_addict
05-10-2004 2:07 PM


I am digging a hole because you say so, I think not buddy.
I never claimed to be a scientist, I only claim that I know God.
I explained exactly where abouts my knowledge is. I have a good understanding of basic science, because of the work I do, and the hobbies I am into.
You now just spoke for everyone in the forum, hardly a position you should take. Speak for yourself, and then I will converse with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by coffee_addict, posted 05-10-2004 2:07 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024