First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Post Reply Atheism debunked.
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

Ejanss wrote:


NyxUlric wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:
What you say may be true, nobody actually knows until they kick the bucket. I don't think it's nice to call 6-7billion people who believe in a god 'nutcases' though. That's how people literally lose their heads in some places.


If they don't want to be called nutcases, then they should stop believing in fairy tales and wake up to reality.
That's also another stupid argument, "you can't know until you die".


Well, y'see, that's because we keep running out of ways to say that "Logic dictates that nothing can be un-proven, so if you can't, you shut up and leave it alone", and have to find simpler and simpler ways of expressing the scientific concept of an open conclusion.
At least without digging out the Crayola crayons.

Stupid, yes, but, y'know....you can't.
Sort of like asking "At what point do you black out when falling off a cliff?"--The only empirical scientific way to prove it one way or the other would be for one of the experimenters to jump, and then it's often difficult to report the data.


As a scientist who is theistic, I agree that trying to use religion to disprove or override science is silly and willfully ignorant. However, there are plenty of people whos faith does not interfere with their ability to also accept science. Both things can coexist without one overriding the other.

A crappy metaphor: Its like, just because you understand the scientific mechanism behind love and perhaps the evolutionary psychology behind your protective instincts towards your kids, you wouldn't think that those feelings were any less genuine or meaningful. Both can exist side by side.

PS: Your question is actually testable...just sayin'
14777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16

sundin13 wrote:
As a scientist who is theistic, I agree that trying to use religion to disprove or override science is silly and willfully ignorant. However, there are plenty of people whos faith does not interfere with their ability to also accept science. Both things can coexist without one overriding the other.

A crappy metaphor: Its like, just because you understand the scientific mechanism behind love and perhaps the evolutionary psychology behind your protective instincts towards your kids, you wouldn't think that those feelings were any less genuine or meaningful. Both can exist side by side.

PS: Your question is actually testable...just sayin'


Oh, yeah, Adam & Jamie did it all the time by putting a few shock meters on Buster.

But it's really more of a tantrum to say that "Because of evolution, there can be no theism", which is really more of an annoyed so-there-nyeah to the organized Religious Right saying "Because of theism there can be no evolution".
From a theological viewpoint, isn't evolution one of the perfect theistic ideas?--The idea that no one IS perfect, nor were we meant to be, but it's hard never-ending work to the horizon to be something better than where we started?
We didn't evolve like the animals did, by eating-or-being-eaten, but by settling down, raising social communities, and coming up with more elaborate reasons to do something other to our neighbor than club him.
(Of course, a Culture of developing civilization would have played a role in that, and Culture involves...)
13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

Ejanss wrote:

From a theological viewpoint, isn't evolution one of the perfect theistic ideas?--The idea that no one IS perfect, nor were we meant to be, but it's hard never-ending work to the horizon to be something better than where we started?


Thats actually pretty interesting. I've never heard it described like that.

Quick anecdote: In the religious "science denial" school of thought, the concept of "intelligent design" exists, which essentially posits that the human body is too well crafted to be created "randomly" by evolution. In my anatomy classes a few years ago, my professor once brought up the example of the knee and talked about how badly made the knee is, which results in a lot of knee problems in people and said something along the lines of "if intelligent design is ever brought up, just point to the knee". I always thought that this way a bit of a weird point on both sides. It seems like it is both a misunderstanding of religion by the "science" crowd and a misunderstanding of science by the "religion" crowd...
Posted 10/18/16

Ejanss

Well, y'see, that's because we keep running out of ways to say that "Logic dictates that nothing can be un-proven, so if you can't, you shut up and leave it alone", and have to find simpler and simpler ways of expressing the scientific concept of an open conclusion.
At least without digging out the Crayola crayons, and slapping the wishful thinker out of trying draw the world with his own.

Stupid, yes, but, y'know....you can't.
Sort of like asking "At what point do you black out when falling off a cliff?"--The only empirical scientific way to prove it one way or the other would be for one of the experimenters to jump, and then it's often difficult to report the data.


Then why don't you go and worship every single religion that exists on this planet? Why choose one only? If nothing can be un-proven, then you'll have to believe leprechauns are real, Cthulu is real etc.

Do you see why such argument is ridiculous and is designed for low intelligence people?

If you cannot see this. Then I have nothing further to say, remain in your delusional ways.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

salamisama wrote:

In the past few months I have spent my time questioning the rationality on behalf of the theory of evolution, and i'm completely confident I have come with a claim that will lay things to rest.

Now, how could humans have evolved from monkeys if monkeys still exist today?


Well everyone, revel in the knowledge you have been bestowed.


Sigh. I hope this is a jab at Christians who use this argument.

As a Christian, I understand that this logic is flawed.


That being said, I will not argue that I have proof of God, but will say only this:

Science understands only a small fragment of existence. I mean a really, really small piece.

In fact, we know so little, we don't even understand exactly how DNA works. I mean, yes, we understand that it results in an organism, and we know that certain genes trigger certain things. However, fundamentally, we don't have a clue. What we know of DNA is like seeing the tides, knowing the moon causes them, but having no understanding of gravity.
We cannot successfully clone. We cannot reconstruct DNA. And we cannot construct DNA from scratch.
Yet, we believe, this complexity has resulted in earth's inhabitants by accident. Which may very well be true, but it is a difficult thing to grasp.
And then you must examine the evidence of evolution, which is a number of apes with human-ish characteristics or humans with ape-ish characteristics. There is no evidence at all that these are truly ancestors and not simply extinct species. Let's look at the neanderthal. Science even acknowledges that the neanderthal is a different branch than modern Homo sapien. In fact, there are modern humans with neanderthal genes from the result of interbreeding.
So, if nothing else, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "missing links" that keep being found could very well be nothing more than extinct primates that were arbitrarily dubbed as such without real evidence.

And that's just DNA. The thing closest to us all.

Now, look at dark matter and dark energy. Basically, it's a bunch of scientists saying "Well, we don't understand how this behavior is happening, BUT if you pretend there is X amount of energy and X amount of matter, it all makes sense."
Well, a long time ago, the world being flat made a whole lot of sense, too, but that doesn't make it true.

Now, physics. Classical mechanics and quantum mechanics downright contradict each other in many ways, yet both are still considered "true" by scientists.

In short:
You want to believe that only science holds the answers? Good for you. But, for everyone's sake, stop pretending you actually have all the answers.
You want to believe in God? Good for you. Nothing in science can disprove his existence. But, for everyone's sake, stop having scientific arguments when all you are doing is making other Christians look like morons.
14777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16

NyxUlric wrote:

Then why don't you go and worship every single religion that exists on this planet? Why choose one only?


Because when I go to a restaurant, I don't order EVERYTHING on the menu, just because it's there.


NyxUlric wrote:
If nothing can be un-proven, then you'll have to believe leprechauns are real, Cthulu is real etc.


However, to state with single authority once and for all that they AREN'T would logically imply having omnipotent knowledge of everything that exists in the world and...well, I get the impression you might think that a silly concept.
11815 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

salamisama wrote:

Now, how could humans have evolved from monkeys if monkeys still exist today?


How could adults have grown up from babies if babies still exist today?

It's the same question, just on a much smaller scale. The babies of today are different babies, who will grow into different adults.

Similarly, the monkeys of today are different monkeys, who will evolve into different species. We're just talking about millions of years, instead of a couple dozen.

And that's only scratching the surface, because fundamentally this question stems from a monumental misunderstanding of how evolution works. The "humans evolved from monkeys" statement is not strictly speaking true, any more than "when a man and a woman love each other very much they can have a baby" is strictly speaking true.

Basically, you are operating from a third-grade understanding of evolution. The detailed and accurate answer is probably way over your head.
11815 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

NyxUlric wrote:

Do you see why such argument is ridiculous and is designed for low intelligence people?


No, because your rebuttal is fucking retarded.

A couple years ago, we had sunk billions of dollars into two different theories of gravity: one that it was waves, and one that it was particles.

Now, Einstein was of the opinion that gravity is neither waves NOR particles. Instead, he believed that space-time is non-Euclidean and flat space is actually curved in the fourth dimension.

But that would mean we can't make three-dimensional things that manipulate gravity, so a lot of people didn't like this idea at all. And we sunk a bunch of money into it.

Now, if space-time is curved in the fourth dimension, all of that money is wasted because we can neither prove nor disprove Einstein's theory.

But instead... we proved gravity is waves. We observed the emission of a gravitational wave, or at least what we sure do think is one. (It is possible the scientists are wrong, or that they are just lying so they can get more money.)

And that's sad, because theoretically if gravity was particles you could focus a narrow beam of gravitons onto a retaining magnetic field until the space-time curvature became infinitely large and you would produce a singularity. Or, in layman's terms, particulate gravity could produce man-made black holes. Theoretically. But it's not particles, it's waves.

Now, Einstein's theory still cannot be proven or disproven. And "gravity is waves" is not yet ABSOLUTELY proven; we need more data. But if we prove gravity is waves, Einstein's theory is incorrect even though it cannot be disproven.

This is called "falsification." We can't prove that a thing IS false. But we CAN, in many cases, prove that it MUST be false.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

cdarklock wrote:


salamisama wrote:

Now, how could humans have evolved from monkeys if monkeys still exist today?


How could adults have grown up from babies if babies still exist today?

It's the same question, just on a much smaller scale. The babies of today are different babies, who will grow into different adults.

Similarly, the monkeys of today are different monkeys, who will evolve into different species. We're just talking about millions of years, instead of a couple dozen.

And that's only scratching the surface, because fundamentally this question stems from a monumental misunderstanding of how evolution works. The "humans evolved from monkeys" statement is not strictly speaking true, any more than "when a man and a woman love each other very much they can have a baby" is strictly speaking true.

Basically, you are operating from a third-grade understanding of evolution. The detailed and accurate answer is probably way over your head.


Yes. Which is what irritates me about these arguments.

However, as someone who has a firm grasp of evolution (I've taken a number of college biology courses, including zoology), the evidence of evolution is terrible. I mean atrocious. They've been dropping any prehistoric specimen that resembles both human and ape into their evolutionary ladder. There's very little evidence they're actually ancestors, rather than separate, extinct species.

So, yeah..... that person has a terrible understanding of evolution, but supporters of evolution have a whole lot of shoddy evidence for that, too.
11815 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:

However, as someone who has a firm grasp of evolution (I've taken a number of college biology courses, including zoology), the evidence of evolution is terrible. I mean atrocious.


It's accuracy that's awful. Evolution is a thing that happens. Full-stop. We know it. The evidence has been in for a long time.

Now, the notion that species X and species Y evolved from common ancestor Z?

For any given X and Y, it's a complete fucking crap shoot whether Z is in ANY way accurate. And a lot of that is people trying to make only minimal modifications to the Linnaean taxonomy, because

a) we'd really rather not learn the whole thing from scratch after all those years in school, and

b) science is a religion.

Godel proved (b) quite handily with his incompleteness theorem, but scientists HATE that and try to ignore it.
Posted 10/18/16


Why fish frogs
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16 , edited 10/18/16

cdarklock wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

However, as someone who has a firm grasp of evolution (I've taken a number of college biology courses, including zoology), the evidence of evolution is terrible. I mean atrocious.


It's accuracy that's awful. Evolution is a thing that happens. Full-stop. We know it. The evidence has been in for a long time.


Eh. We have proven that the change of a species can result in a new species. I mean, it is documented. This has occurred within recorded history. However, as far as we've witnessed, the resulting species are still very similar, and can produce fertile hybrid offspring that can reintegrate into a single species.

As far as evidence of one species becoming so far removed from the original that such interbreeding is impossible? No. And, in this the theory of evolution is still a theory.

It really bugs me when people state theory as proven fact.
SAO666 
31232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

salamisama wrote:

In the past few months I have spent my time questioning the rationality on behalf of the theory of evolution, and i'm completely confident I have come with a claim that will lay things to rest.

Now, how could humans have evolved from monkeys if monkeys still exist today?


Well everyone, revel in the knowledge you have been bestowed.


Mendel bread peas to create new kinds of peas. The original kind of peas still existed along with the ones that he created through selected breeding.
14777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/18/16

cdarklock wrote:
This is called "falsification." We can't prove that a thing IS false. But we CAN, in many cases, prove that it MUST be false.


And because science can't logically prove the non-existence of something, it can't make dogmatic statements about something that cannot be observed, like gravity or the workings of the atom--
It can only state the likelihood of the theory being correct or incorrect, based on experiments designed to test observable portions of it.

Or to put it in simpler terms, ever notice how prescription-drug commercials are never allowed by the FDA to say flat-out that their drug will "cure" something?
What you hear instead is, "A majority of cases saw improved symptoms in clinical tests". Which is all science can allow you to say with single authority.
Posted 10/18/16

cdarklock wrote:


NyxUlric wrote:

Do you see why such argument is ridiculous and is designed for low intelligence people?


No, because your rebuttal is fucking retarded.

A couple years ago, we had sunk billions of dollars into two different theories of gravity: one that it was waves, and one that it was particles.

Now, Einstein was of the opinion that gravity is neither waves NOR particles. Instead, he believed that space-time is non-Euclidean and flat space is actually curved in the fourth dimension.

But that would mean we can't make three-dimensional things that manipulate gravity, so a lot of people didn't like this idea at all. And we sunk a bunch of money into it.

Now, if space-time is curved in the fourth dimension, all of that money is wasted because we can neither prove nor disprove Einstein's theory.

But instead... we proved gravity is waves. We observed the emission of a gravitational wave, or at least what we sure do think is one. (It is possible the scientists are wrong, or that they are just lying so they can get more money.)

And that's sad, because theoretically if gravity was particles you could focus a narrow beam of gravitons onto a retaining magnetic field until the space-time curvature became infinitely large and you would produce a singularity. Or, in layman's terms, particulate gravity could produce man-made black holes. Theoretically. But it's not particles, it's waves.

Now, Einstein's theory still cannot be proven or disproven. And "gravity is waves" is not yet ABSOLUTELY proven; we need more data. But if we prove gravity is waves, Einstein's theory is incorrect even though it cannot be disproven.

This is called "falsification." We can't prove that a thing IS false. But we CAN, in many cases, prove that it MUST be false.


You seriously need help if you actually believe what you're saying makes any ounce of sense.

Nobody goes around saying the nature of gravity IS waves as fact, but there are nutcases going from door to door claiming Jesus is real blah blah.

Are you that dull? That you're comparing apples to oranges?

Also calling my rebuttal retarded? Aren't you the one who claims racism is normal? I wonder who is the retard of this forum....
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.