Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#151
#151
ridethelightening said:
I thought science was based on what we could prove and there was no faith or assumptions applied? I believe in faith. You wholeheartedly detest it, yet you can't prove everything you believe in
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Science is based on disproving a null hypothesis, and going from there with a new "null" until it can't be disproved.
 
#152
#152
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Then why did you make the point to begin with?



Not sure I really follow your logic here, but if I could offer an interpretation... seems like you're more willing to believe almost anything before you would believe in God. This, at least to me, defies normal reasoning and suggests that perhaps you've had some bad experiences with "religion" at some point.
Click to expand...

I made a point of equivalency. How does that equate to my being biased against god? I only said, and nobody can logically refute the position that I've ever met, that there is no more evidence to say your god did it, than any other god, or aliens, or a demon. Now, I did say a demon is more likely....but that is only because natural selection is a vicious twisted system.
 
#153
#153
turambar85 said:
Nobody can say that with certainty, but as there is no evidence for that belief, and it isn't even logically testable in any possible future, science and people concerned with scientific evidence, can effectively discard that hypothesis.

I mean, really, the obvious answer is to say that there is no way of proving it isn't the intricate system of advanced aliens who refuse to let us see them, or that it is the intricate system or an evil demon (this is more likely than god, as natural selection, and nature itself, is brutal and tortuous.
Click to expand...

so its much more likely that a bunch of random atoms happened to explode, and a rock landed the perfect distance, and has the perfect tilt, water content, oxygen/nitrogen air content, for life to exist?
 
#154
#154
turambar85 said:
I made a point of equivalency. How does that equate to my being biased against god? I only said, and nobody can logically refute the position that I've ever met, that there is no more evidence to say your god did it, than any other god, or aliens, or a demon. Now, I did say a demon is more likely....but that is only because natural selection is a vicious twisted system.
Click to expand...

and on the flip side, your type has never been able to prove to me that God didnt do it
 
#156
#156
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
and on the flip side, your type has never been able to prove to me that God didnt do it
Click to expand...

Again. That doesn't matter, nor does it mean anything. Can you prove that any of the thousands of historical gods aren't real, or "didn't do it"? You cannot prove the metaphysical, you cannot prove the spiritual. If a hypothesis cannot be proven false, that is something wrong with the hypothesis. It isn't a badge, it is a condemnation.

Prove that there isn't an invisible, undetectable dragon in your garage. I'll wait here. And, if you can't, I guess that means I'm somehow right, right? :salute:
 
#157
#157
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
so its much more likely that a bunch of random atoms happened to explode, and a rock landed the perfect distance, and has the perfect tilt, water content, oxygen/nitrogen air content, for life to exist?
Click to expand...

My dad's analogy was always; you can't take a bunch of scrap metal, blow it up with dynamite and it turn into a pink cadi
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#159
#159
your whole argument is based upon the theory of evolution, which is just a theory, not 100% proven hence not a law, so you are kind of in the same boat are you not?
 
#160
#160
ridethelightening said:
And thus, God has been disproven?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No. We're having a communication error. If one were to look at God scientifically directly, they'd start with the null hypothesis: There is no God. They would then try to disprove it. Because there really isn't a way to dispute that statement, it can't be discarded.

If you know of a way to empirically disprove that statement, you could make a lot of money off of a book. So it isn't that God is disproved by science. There is just no evidence that he exists.
 
#161
#161
BigPapaVol said:
but being intellectually honest kills both sides of the debate. To pretend that the evolution side of the debate doesn't require faith makes him offering up that comment look like the idiot he assumes those believing in a creator to be.
Click to expand...

I think the qualitative difference is the "faith" that you say science/evolution needs is more than willing to change given new evidence. Suffice to say, no matter the evidence, religion will always find some way to fit a creator into the explanation. Before evolutionary theory, was there any doubt in the genesis story being fact? It's only after the fact that we get these explanations of God using evolution, both are compatible, etc.

IMO, the only thing religion has proven is that the beliefs are structured in an elastic way so they can conviently fill any gap science has, past...present...and future.
 
#162
#162
turambar85 said:
Again. That doesn't matter, nor does it mean anything. Can you prove that any of the thousands of historical gods aren't real, or "didn't do it"? You cannot prove the metaphysical, you cannot prove the spiritual. If a hypothesis cannot be proven false, that is something wrong with the hypothesis. It isn't a badge, it is a condemnation.

Prove that there isn't an invisible, undetectable dragon in your garage. I'll wait here. And, if you can't, I guess that means I'm somehow right, right? :salute:
Click to expand...

You strictly speak of what you can prove yet IP says that is not a factor, so I get confused
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#163
#163
ridethelightening said:
My dad's analogy was always; you can't take a bunch of scrap metal, blow it up with dynamite and it turn into a pink cadi
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Your dad (sorry) really doesn't know what he is talking about, and doesn't understand natural selection. Don't feel bad, I didn't either until a few years ago. I bought the same absurd argument, and watched as the same straw man collapsed before me.

Again, the mutation is chance. The selection is almost necessity given the environmental context.
 
#165
#165
IPorange said:
No. We're having a communication error. If one were to look at God scientifically directly, they'd start with the null hypothesis: There is no God. They would then try to disprove it. Because there really isn't a way to dispute that statement, it can't be discarded.

If you know of a way to empirically disprove that statement, you could make a lot of money off of a book. So it isn't that God is disproved by science. There is just no evidence that he exists.
Click to expand...

Sure there is, look all around you
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#166
#166
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
your whole argument is based upon the theory of evolution, which is just a theory, not 100% proven hence not a law, so you are kind of in the same boat are you not?
Click to expand...

That isn't what theory means in science. Have you heard of the theory of gravity? Or the germ theory of disease? :lolabove:

Second, science cannot prove anything about the material world with 100% certainty. That isn't what science does. Hell, no human endeavor can attain 100% certainty. But, it can be probabilistically proven.
 
#167
#167
read the argument, he was refering to my slam on the big bang theory, and how it was all just random chance. Too much is excused as random chance
 
#168
#168
turambar85 said:
Your dad (sorry) really doesn't know what he is talking about, and doesn't understand natural selection. Don't feel bad, I didn't either until a few years ago. I bought the same absurd argument, and watched as the same straw man collapsed before me.

Again, the mutation is chance. The selection is almost necessity given the environmental context.
Click to expand...

Even if the laws of entropy did directly apply to natural selection, Earth isn't a closed system anyway.
 
#169
#169
turambar85 said:
Your dad (sorry) really doesn't know what he is talking about, and doesn't understand natural selection. Don't feel bad, I didn't either until a few years ago. I bought the same absurd argument, and watched as the same straw man collapsed before me.

Again, the mutation is chance. The selection is almost necessity given the environmental context.
Click to expand...

Prove it to me
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#170
#170
OK, his dad doesn't understand the big bang theory and/or chemistry. Again, no worries. Most of us don't. I don't in that regard, I do biology - and not very well. I don't give a damn about cosmology.
 
#172
#172
turambar85 said:
That isn't what theory means in science. Have you heard of the theory of gravity? Or the germ theory of disease? :lolabove:

Second, science cannot prove anything about the material world with 100% certainty. That isn't what science does. Hell, no human endeavor can attain 100% certainty. But, it can be probabilistically proven.
Click to expand...

actually hoss gravity is a law.

if it is only proven to be probably, and not for sure, then how can you completly bash something stating they are wrong and you are right based upon probably?
 
#173
#173
IPorange said:
That's what is called circular logic. How did everything get here? By God. What proof is there that there is a God? Everything is here, isn't it?
Click to expand...

When trying to prove a metaphysical hypothesis, or a faith-based belief, there aren't any better tools than circular reasoning.
 
#175
#175
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
actually hoss gravity is a law.

if it is only proven to be probably, and not for sure, then how can you completly bash something stating they are wrong and you are right based upon probably?
Click to expand...

Look. This isn't a nihilistic argument. Just because we can never attain certainty doesn't mean there is no way of discerning good and bad beliefs. We can still bash bad beliefs, and the people who hold them in epistemically condemnable ways.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top