Quote:

---

Oh, I know. Since I disagreed with you and you have now admitted you were wrong

---

I never said I was wrong. There is nothing wrong with assumptions. We use assumptions everyday, we see something behave one way and we assume that it will happen the same way or close to the same way again. If you try to grab the second bar of the monkey bars and fail. Isn't it safe to assume that if you try to grab the third bar you would fail as well? I don't see anything wrong with that kind assumptions.

Quote:

---

The reason it's a theory and not a fact is because it fits some of the existing evidence but not all of the existing evidence.

---

A layman understanding of most scientific theory maybe but all existing theories fit all evidence that why they are still theory. Again you are confusing the common use of theory with the scientific version. Until you get the difference between the two the only reason to respond to you is so young person reading this doesn't think you are right and we slip a little farther into the dark ages.

Quote:

---

Edward Jenner himself was a Christian

---

So were most of the criminals. What is your point? It still stands that saying god did it gets us no where.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Correction, you don't understand about red shift or doppler effect so you ascribe it to a god in the same way the ancient didn't understand where thunder came from and ascribed it to a god.

---

Lol!!

OK, my turn. Correction, YOU don't understand them AND you've never observed them and yet you consider them absolute proof of another phenomenon which you've never observed and is still a theory. That is the epitome of what is generally considered blind faith.

Oh and just because something is ancient doesn't mean its wrong. And we do believe God created thunder, just as we believe He created everything else. Including the red shift and the doppler effect.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I really hope you see the flaw in this point.

---

I really hope you see the flaw in the point I was countering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Lol!!!

OK, my turn. Correction, YOU don't understand them AND you've never observed them and yet you consider them absolute proof of another phenomenon which you've never observed and is still a theory. That is the epitome of what is generally considered blind faith.

Oh and just because something is ancient doesn't mean its wrong. And we do believe God created thunder, just as we believe He created everything else. Including the red shift and the doppler effect.

Sincerely,

De Maria

---

Two points here:
- it appears that you trust no one but yourself and your own observations. That leaves a very narrow view of the world, which is actually in keeping with your faith. When people get an education they trust that the studies done by others have been subjected to debate and verification.
- you've fallen into circular and contradictory reasoning. One the one hand you say that since I didn't observe the red shift and the doppler effect then they most likely do not exist; then you turn around and say that God made them. What proof is there that god made them... because god made everything!

You obviously trust the work of scientists or you would not be using this computer or the internet or your car or your phone, etc ad nauseum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Two points here:
- it appears that you trust no one but yourself and your own observations. That leaves a very narrow view of the world, which is actually in keeping with your faith. When people get an education they trust that the studies done by others have been subjected to debate and verification.
- you've fallen into circular and contradictory reasoning. One the one hand you say that since I didn't observe the red shift and the doppler effect then they most likely do not exist; then you turn around and say that God made them. What proof is there that god made them...because god made everything!

You obviously trust the work of scientists or you would not be using this computer or the internet or your car or your phone, etc ad nauseum.

---

Two of my house mates have actually been performing analyses of red shift data for planetary nebulae this year. Interesting stuff! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I never said I was wrong.

---

But when you said,

Quote:

---

Your right a lot of science is assumed.

---

You admitted we were right. And since two opposite and contradictory statements can't be true at the same time, then ipso facto, you admitted you were wrong.

Quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with assumptions.

---

I never said we didn't.

Quote:

---

We use assumptions everyday, we see something behave one way and we assume that it will happen the same way or close to the same way again. If you try to grab the second bar of the monkey bars and fail. Isn't it safe to assume that if you try to grab the third bar you would fail as well? I don't see anything wrong with that kind assumptions.

---

I don't see anything wrong with distinguishing between assumption and fact either. But that wasn't your argument previous. You are now distinguishing between assumption and fact. Something you weren't doing before.

Now, lets take your monkey bar assumption above. If you try to grab the second bar of the monkey bars and fail. Isn't it safe to assume that if you try to grab the third bar you would fail as well?

Sure. At the same velocity, acceleration and trajectory. But if you increase your velocity, acceleration and trajectory, is it theoretically possible that you might be able to reach the third bar?

I'd try the theory out on the second bar first. Then if it succeeded, I'd test it on the third bar.

And what happens if you can reach that third bar upon further testing of the theory? Well, you're first assumption should be discarded. You can make a new assumption. If you increase the velocity, acceleration and trajectory, you travel farther.

Now you can modify your theory. If you increase your v, a and t, sufficiently, you can reach any bar.

Now, care to test the theory on the fourth bar?

Quote:

---

A layman understanding of most scientific theory maybe but all existing theories fit all evidence that why they are still theory.

---

Any theory that fits ALL the evidence becomes a fact.

Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than General Relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications.Gravity and quantum mechanics...

Main articles: Graviton and Quantum gravity

Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[12]
Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, even though Newton's theory has been superseded and even the new improved theory does not fit all the evidence, it remains a theory.

Quote:

---

Again you are confusing the common use of theory with the scientific version. Until you get the difference between the two the only reason to respond to you is so young person reading this doesn't think you are right and we slip a little farther into the dark ages.

---

Neh. The only reason you are responding is because you have decided to deny your previous admission. But its on the record. You have admitted you were wrong.

Oh and your continued reference to the dark ages is misplaced. Please read your history. The Church was the major player in providing education and educational institutions in the world during and many years after the period commonly known as the dark ages.

That is historical fact. Anytime you want to discuss that, be my guest.

Quote:

---

So were most of the criminals.

---

Perhaps. I'm not aware of any study on the matter. But it stands to reason since Judaism and Christianity were outlawed in many countries for many centuries. As they are in some parts of the world even today.

Quote:

---

What is your point?

---

Your point, which I was countering and which you are now trying to deny was that those who believe in God have no incentive to scientific inquiry. However, that is far from true. Jews and Christians believe we have a mandate from God to learn about our world.

Quote:

---

It still stands that saying god did it gets us no where.

---

You are wrong. Believing in God gives us incentive to understand the world He created for us.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I'll leave mike to answer most of this, but I need to correct you on some of this, or it will irk me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Any theory that fits ALL the evidence becomes a fact.

---

Rubbish, a piece of evidence is a fact, like "leaves fall off trees in winter" or "Galaxy X shows a redshift of Y", these are facts. A theory explains a framework of facts. A theory can then go on to make predictions for which experiments can be designed or observations can be made to test the theory. There is nothing in science more concrete than theory, it's the highest tier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

So, even though Newton's theory has been superseded and even the new improved theory does not fit all the evidence, it remains a theory.

---

Rubbish again. Newton's theory is still a theory because it is correct for all evidence. Newton's theory includes conditions over which it is not applicable, in this case, speeds approaching c (and others). This makes it correct and thus still a theory.

Quote:

---

You are wrong. Believing in God gives us incentive to understand the world He created for us.

---

If you want to understand, why do you not want to build on the work of others. Surely even you can understand that the next great scientific discovery is going to come from someone who has studied theories. Even if you want to prove a theory wrong it has to be understood. If you really think evolution or the big bang theory is wrong you should demand it be taught in school because no one is going to prove it wrong if they don't understand it in the first place. Teaching god did it and then stopping isn't going to get us anywhere. If we are to understand this world we have to use our observations and assumptions, otherwise we say god did it go get a beer.

Yes the church was a the major source of learning during the Dark Ages, hence why it was the Dark Ages.

Also I don't think I ever said that science doesn't use assumptions. Of course we use assumptions otherwise we would have to make every calculation in to infinity because how could we know a higher number won't work unless we assume that since the lower onces didn't the higher number won't work either or something to that effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Two points here:
- it appears that you trust no one but yourself and your own observations.

---

Where did you get that impression? It is precisely a Christian trait that we believe what has been taught by our forefathers.

On the other hand, it is an atheist trait to believe only what you see.

Quote:

---

That leaves a very narrow view of the world, which is actually in keeping with your faith.

---

Again, it is my faith, my Church which is renowned for its educational institutions.
The Catholic Church: Impacting History

Quote:

---

When people get an education they trust that the studies done by others have been subjected to debate and verification.

---

A procedure long used by Christians.

Quote:

---

- you've fallen into circular and contradictory reasoning. One the one hand you say that since I didn't observe the red shift and the doppler effect then they most likely do not exist;

---

Did I? When? Please quote me.

Quote:

---

then you turn around and say that God made them.

---

That is true.

Quote:

---

What proof is there that god made them... because god made everything!

---

You're learning.

Quote:

---

You obviously trust the work of scientists or you would not be using this computer or the internet or your car or your phone, etc ad nauseum.

---

Wow!! You've made a breakthrough.

Here's my two points. 1. To justify that you don't believe in God, you claim that you don't believe anything that you can't see. 2. Yet you contradict yourself by believing many scientific assumptions and theories which you have never seen.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

I'll leave mike to answer most of this, but I need to correct you on some of this, or it will irk me.

---

It tends to irk you when you are proven wrong.

Quote:

---

Rubbish

---

What an impressive vocabulary. When you disagree with someone, all you seem capable of doing is insulting them. What do you think that because you insult me you will be able to cow me into agreeing with you?

Quote:

---

, a piece of evidence is a fact,

---

Did I say that a piece of evidence wasn't a fact? Please show me when I said that.

Otherwise, I will have to say that you are trying an old, old fallacious argument technique known as "building a straw man".
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, if you can't win the real argument, make up an argument and pretend your opponent is using it. Then trounce that argument and pretend you have won the debate.

Unfortunately for you, I never said that a piece of evidence wasn't a fact.

Quote:

---

like "leaves fall off trees in winter" or "Galaxy X shows a redshift of Y", these are facts.

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

A theory explains a framework of facts.

---

Wrong. A theory purports to explain a network of facts. If the theory successfully explained the facts, then it would no longer be a theory but a fact.

We can look at the theory of gravitation again and see that portions of that theory are in fact, facts. What goes up must come down, on earth. But not in space where there is no up or down.

So, the theory of gravitation, the theory that objects fall, is proven on earth.

But there is no way to ever prove the theory of the Big Bang and there is not enough evidence yet to say that the theory of evolution is a fact.

Quote:

---

A theory can then go on to make predictions

---

Based on assumptions derived from the facts. But the assumptions are not facts and neither are the theories.

Quote:

---

for which experiments can be designed or observations can be made to test the theory.

---

To see if the predictions based on those theories will pass the test.

Quote:

---

There is nothing in science more concrete than theory, it's the highest tier.

---

Ok. Question. Are scientific theories always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory? Yes?

Another question. What are scientific facts. Are scientific facts always tentative and subject to correction? No?

Since scientific facts are not tentative nor subject to correction and the theories which purport to explain those facts are always tentative and subject to correction, by what stretch of the imagination do you deduce that theories are a higher tier than facts?

Quote:

---

Rubbish again.

---

That seems to be the only thing coming out of your mind.

Quote:

---

Newton's theory is still a theory because it is correct for all evidence.

---

Wrong. Oh wait. I want to use your fancy word. Rubbish! Newton's theory is still a theory because there are things which it still doesn't prove. Since it does not explain all the facts, it is not itself true in all instances.

Quote:

---

Newton's theory includes conditions over which it is not applicable, in this case, speeds approaching c (and others). This makes it correct and thus still a theory.

---

Newton's theory explains the speed of light?

Ok that bears explanation. Since I've always heard that Newton's theory fails to explain the speed of light.

Quote:

---

This makes it correct and thus still a theory.

---

As I understand it, Newton's theory does not explain the behavior of light beams. Therefore it remains a theory because it is incorrect in some cases such as this one.

So, please, I invite you to explain how Newton's theory explains the behavior of light beams.

This property of light is very different from, say, the properties of peas as described by the mechanics of Newton: if a person rides on a scooter and shoots peas, these move faster than the peas shot by a person standing by (see Sect. 5.4.1). In contrast if the person on the scooter turns on a laser and the person standing by does the same when they coincide on the street, these two laser beams will reach Pluto at the same time (Fig. 6.5); this happens even if the scooter moves at 99% of the speed of light.

Newton would be horrified by this behavior of light beams: according to his mechanics velocities add, so that the laser beam from the scooter should reach Pluto sooner.
The first prediction: the speed of light and the demise of Newton's mechanics

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

If you want to understand, why do you not want to build on the work of others.

---

When did I say that I did not want to build on the work of others? What has that even to do with our discussion?

Like your counterpart, you are now trying desperately to win an argument by changing the subject and attributing to me something which I never said.

Quote:

---

Surely even you can understand that the next great scientific discovery is going to come from someone who has studied theories.

---

What has that to do with whether theories are facts?

Quote:

---

Even if you want to prove a theory wrong it has to be understood.

---

Still not the subject of our discussion.

Quote:

---

If you really think evolution or the big bang theory is wrong you should demand it be taught in school because no one is going to prove it wrong if they don't understand it in the first place.

---

?? Its you and people like you who don't want God, Creationism, Intelligent Design and many other things taught in school.

When did I say I didn't want the Big Bang theory taught in school? Is that even a part of this discussion?

Quote:

---

Teaching god did it and then stopping isn't going to get us anywhere.

---

Again, when did I say to stop at teaching that God did it?

Quote:

---

If we are to understand this world we have to use our observations and assumptions, otherwise we say god did it go get a beer.

---

I think its time for you to go get a beer. All you've done in this message is attribute to me, things I never said.

Quote:

---

Yes the church was a the major source of learning during the Dark Ages, hence why it was the Dark Ages.

---

Actually that is only true for anti-Christians who want to attribute all evils to Christianity. But that is not the case with educated historians:

When the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely, to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times. The darkness is ours, not theirs.[3]
Dark Ages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Also I don't think I ever said that science doesn't use assumptions.

---

Not in so many words. But you did characterize scientific answers as:

Quote:

---

Answers based on observation and experimentation (Science)

---

And you didn't admit that science based many of its answers on assumption until recently.

Quote:

---

Of course we use assumptions otherwise we would have to make every calculation in to infinity because how could we know a higher number won't work unless we assume that since the lower onces didn't the higher number won't work either or something to that effect.

---

OK. Now go get your beer.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Here's my two points. 1. To justify that you don't believe in God, you claim that you don't believe anything that you can't see. 2. Yet you contradict yourself by believing many scientific assumptions and theories which you have never seen.

---

Apparently your style of debate is to twist others words into a meaning that matches the point you wish to make. That is unfortunate. I have never said that I don't believe anything that I can't see. I believe in things of which there is evidence of their existence. Do you get the not-so-subtle difference? So it follows that there is no evidence of a god therefore your faith is simply that - blind faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Like your counterpart, you are now trying desperately to win an argument by changing the subject and attributing to me something which I never said.

---

Actually you did that very thing to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ineedhelpfast

my view on this subject is that there is a god, if you disagree then lets discuss what you think...the second question is if there is a God, whos God is the right God...and please dont say that everyones god is the right one, because that statement is contradiction itself.

---

Back to the OP:

I don't think so. I'd like to believe that there's something bigger than just life here, but without a manifestation, I'll just assume we're it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Apparently your style of debate is to twist others words into a meaning that matches the point you wish to make.

---

Oh, it must be rubbing off from you. Sorry.

Quote:

---

That is unfortunate. I have never said that I don't believe anything that I can't see. I believe in things of which there is evidence of their existence. Do you get the not-so-subtle difference?

---

I understand quite well.

Applying this to the Big Bang, the Doppler effect and the Red Shift for instance,
If a scientist claims to discover a phenomenon which you don't understand, you believe it immediately, you then attribute to it attributes which you can't prove and ascribe to it a reason which you have never seen and which can't be duplicated. And then you expect everyone to believe that your theory is fact rather than speculation based on far fetched assumptions.

And, if they don't believe you, you get indignant and respond with insulting and belittling comments.

Got it.

Quote:

---

So it follows that there is no evidence of a god therefore your faith is simply that - .

---

That is a non-sequitir. Just because you can't see the evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

Quote:

---

blind faith

---

Actually, blind faith describes your gullible attitude towards every new so called scientific theory which comes down the pike.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by De Maria

Applying this to the Big Bang, the Doppler effect and the Red Shift for instance,
If a scientist claims to discover a phenomenon which you don't understand,

---

Who says I don't understand it?

Quote:

---

you believe it immediately, you then attribute to it attributes which you can't prove

---

What the hell does that mean??

Quote:

---

And ascribe to it a reason which you have never seen and which can't be duplicated. And then you expect everyone to believe that your theory is fact rather than speculation based on far fetched assumptions.

---

Red shift is duplicated/verified everyday in space observation and in regular daily activities. Here is some basic info for you:
THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
Light - Doppler Effect
06: Red Shift
Unless you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists to create fake data.

Quote:

---

And, if they don't believe you, you get indignant and respond with insulting and belittling comments.

---

Nah, I see that more from the fundies that from anyone else.

Quote:

---

That is a non-sequitir. Just because you can't see the evidence doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist. Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

---

Yet that's the same argument you are using against me. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Actually, blind faith describes your gullible attitude towards every new so called scientific theory which comes down the pike.

---

Example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Actually you did that very thing to me.

---

You are correct. I apologize. There is no excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Who says I don't understand it?

---

I do.

Quote:

---

What the hell does that mean??

---

It means that scientiests tell you they see phenomenon which they call the Red Shift and the Doppler Effect and claim that this is evidence of the Big Bang and instead of saying to yourself, "ok, that makes sense. Its a reasonable ASSUMPTION." you immediately jump to the conclusion that assumed connection between the phenomenon and the theory are facts.

Quote:

---

Red shift is duplicated/verified everyday in space observation and in regular daily activities.

---

Did I say that the Red Shift was not observed everyday?

Quote:

---

Here is some basic info for you:
THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE
Light - Doppler Effect
06: Red Shift
Unless you believe there is a worldwide conspiracy among scientists to create fake data.

---

No. I believe the phenomenon exist. I just know the difference between assumption, speculation, theory and proven fact.

Quote:

---

Nah, I see that more from the fundies that from anyone else.

---

I'm not a fundie.

Quote:

---

Yet that's the same argument you are using against me. :rolleyes:

Example?

---

The idea that the Red Shift and the Doppler Effect prove the Big Bang actually occurred.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albear

i dont believe there is a god, i just can't see any factual reason to believe there is one thats all.

---

Do you have factual reasons to believe he doesn't exit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Do you have factual reasons to belive he doesnt exit?

---

Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I never said I was wrong. There is nothing wrong with assumptions. We use assumptions everyday, we see something behave one way and we assume that it will happen the same way or close to the same way again. If you try to grab the second bar of the monkey bars and fail. Isn't it safe to assume that if you try to grab the third bar you would fail as well? I don't see anything wrong with that kind assumptions.

A layman understanding of most scientific theory maybe but all existing theories fit all evidence that why they are still theory. Again you are confusing the common use of theory with the scientific version. Until you get the difference between the two the only reason to respond to you is so young person reading this doesn't think you are right and we slip a little farther into the dark ages.


So were most of the criminals. What is your point? It still stands that saying god did it gets us no where.

---

I think someone needs to remind michealb the meanings of assuption and theory

As·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.


The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.
Presumption; arrogance.
Logic. A minor premise.

The·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n. pl. -ries.

The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice:
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture

So if you believe science as fact to explain origins despite the fact that we all know there is nothing factual about it, then your beliefs are as good as religious person because it all faith. Your FAITH is in man and science and Christian's faith is in God. Bottom line it is all FAITH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

If you want to understand, why do you not want to build on the work of others. Surely even you can understand that the next great scientific discovery is going to come from someone who has studied theories. Even if you want to prove a theory wrong it has to be understood. If you really think evolution or the big bang theory is wrong you should demand it be taught in school because no one is going to prove it wrong if they don't understand it in the first place. Teaching god did it and then stopping isn't going to get us anywhere. If we are to understand this world we have to use our observations and assumptions, otherwise we say god did it go get a beer.

Yes the church was a the major source of learning during the Dark Ages, hence why it was the Dark Ages.

Also I don't think I ever said that science doesn't use assumptions. Of course we use assumptions otherwise we would have to make every calculation in to infinity because how could we know a higher number won't work unless we assume that since the lower onces didn't the higher number won't work either or something to that effect.

---

I know this is a cliché but its so fitting here. "Assume" makes an as* out of u & me.. :D

Science is just man's attempt at making sense of what God ALREADY created thousands of years ago. So God is the altermate scientist. He created it all. He is a Genius!

Quote:

---

So it follows that there is no evidence of a god therefore your faith is simply that - .

---

There is no evidence for God? You are joking right?. lol who told you that?

There is an insurmountable amount of evidence for God. A lot more evidence for God than there is for that Hoax evolution and the Big bang.
The evidence is there, the only difference is whether you see the evidence as sufficient or not. I see the evidence as more than sufficient while you don't.
So the evidence is there but whether one accepts it as sufficient or not, is a purely subjective opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

You should have read that article a little closer. It is a logical fallacy which you committed before. In essence, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence:

Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist."

"Scientists don't know for sure what natural forces caused the first single-cell life, so it must be intelligent design."

"Creationists don't have proof that there was an intelligent designer, therefore there must not have been intelligent design."


Sincerely,

De Maria

Correct, it applies to both sides.

Your still using the wrong definitions.
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

If you are going to ignore facts and not learn I don't know what to tell you because it really doesn't matter what I tell you. You aren't interested in learning your interested pushing your belief on people without regard to fact or reality.

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.” ~Elbert Hubbard

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Your still using the wrong definitions.
Noun 1. scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

---

You don't need to explain what a theory is to me. How ever you want to slice it, a thoery is not a fact.

Quote:

---

If you are going to ignore facts and not learn I don't know what to tell you because it really doesn't matter what I tell you. You aren't interested in learning your interested pushing your belief on people without regard to fact or reality.

---

I don't need to learn anything from you because you don't seem to even understand the fundamental principles of science. I am currently doing a graduate degree in Biology and I have an undergrad in Biology (minor in Chemistry) graduated magna laude, so if anyone is going to learn anything from the other, it going to be you.

The misunderstanding you seem to have is that you think just because scientific theories may use facts as a premise/basis for a theory, you conclude that the theory is in it self a fact. This can not be further from the truth. Most theories are based on assuptions more often than not. It seems you are the one who is trying to avoid the reality of this fact.

Oh and by the way, if anyone is "pushing their beliefs" on anyone, its YOU. Need I remind you that this is the religous forum not a science forum... lol So you are the one who needs to stop waisting your time preaching your beliefs in the big bang and all that rubbish to Christians/theists. I think I speak for all/most theists when I say we are not interested in your athiestic beliefs. Sorry..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ineedhelpfast

my view on this subject is that there is a god, if you disagree then lets discuss what you think...the second question is if there is a God, whos God is the right God...and please dont say that everyones god is the right one, because that statement is contradiction itself.

---

HI! What a WONDERFUL topic! So many don't like to discuss religion, but when you have true faith, it's always a blessing to share the Word and the Gospel. Yes, I believe in God (The One & ONLY being my belief) who's story's told in The Holy Bible including Jesus Christ as Our Lord and Saviour (God's Son sent to earth in the Flesh to save and forgive us our sins by sacrificing His life), "Son" not in the sense we use the word, He was actually God in the flesh/human form, the only way he could come to Earth and we could handle it. They are One and the Same, The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

**IF THIS IS TOO LONG OR YOU DON'T CARE TO READ ALL THIS, PLEASE JUST SCROLL DOWN AND READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH!! THX. :-)

I've been a Christian all my life yet it's still difficult to explain, when you are touched by the Holy Spirit/God, you don't have to know all of the Bible to have faith and a relationship with God, it's felt spiritually (in my experience). I'm fairly young and still working on reading the entire Bible so I won't pretend to tell you I know it all, just my own feelings and experiences.

I agree it's contradictory to claim that everyone's "God" is right, or the right one for them, etc... The response from "Buzzman" who mentions God as the Alpha and Omega seems to know what they are talking about, have good knowledge of the Bible, and understand what it is to be a dedicated follower of Christ. I agree fully with what they said.

However, if you are not a Christian or are new to Christianity it can be very trying on the mind (the enemy/devil constantly fights God within our mind through fear, doubt, & negativity) in the sense that we simply don't have ALL the answers, but really no one does, therein lies the need for faith. That's why God is the creator and we are his children, just as no one will ever be perfect or free of sin on Earth, we'll also never fully understand until we meet in Heaven or the 2nd coming of Christ. God teaches us individually what we need to know and that personal relationship is very special, unique for all who seek Him.

Those who say they're Christian and believe that all God's are OK are wrong (whether they realize it or not, even if their intentions are good), it clearly says in the Bible there is only One True God and changing God's words to suit your own needs or wants due to selfishness, or what YOU feel safe or comfortable in believing is blasphemy or like trying to be God in a sense yourself, making up your own rules so to speak. It's considered lukewarm or in-between and God basically says he'd prefer someone to not believe at all than believe what they pick.

My interpretation of some parts of the Bible explain that the innocent aren't held accountable, but those who know of God/Jesus and decide to ignore this will be damned. To me, this means if a person lives their whole life taught ONLY a Non-Christian religion with truly no proper teaching or knowledge of God/Jesus Christ, they may still go to Heaven because they are "innocent" in God's eyes, this also true for children who die before they're old enough to understand. It seems harsh to believe those who know of Christianity and choose to ignore it won't be saved, but again, we can't possibly know ALL of God's plan, we just have to trust it. I know if I was raised believing one thing and told I wouldn't be saved if I didn't change and also would be punished if I abandoned my native religion, I probably wouldn't change due to loyalty & faith in what I was raised to believe, then again if I listened God could show me what was really right. It is made clear that there are a certain number of people/souls on Earth that won't follow Christ and be saved no matter what, it's what is written.

Christianity is the most factual and documented religion, a book I like to recommend is "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. He's a lawyer who was an atheist for many years, set out to find facts to disprove Christianity, found it impossible and ended up doing the opposite, convinced himself of the facts, and became saved and a follower of Christ!

A one world/unified religion will only happen if we see the End of Days, the Anti-Christ takes over as a one world leader, proceeds to lawfully force his new religion naming himself as god over everyone (Satan in the flesh). I feel this is part of the reason why there isn't a 100% worldly following of any one belief system.

The Bible is written to each of us individually, our own personal interpretation being how God communicates with us directly, it's really amazing. Of course there are areas with only one direct meaning, but there is much that can speak differently to each of us and always provide what you need to know, how and when you need to know it. All true Christians know what I mean here, it's not wordly but spiritual.

I feel I am sending you this response because God wants me to, I never talk to people online, just signed up here today to ask a question about my dog, randomly saw your question, and felt completely compelled to send you my thoughts. That to me is the hand of God.

Anyway, I hope at least some of this helps and you weren't bored or offended by anything I've said. Your name being "I need help fast" makes me concerned for you, and with love in my heart I will pray that Our Lord is with you and that you're well mind, body, and soul. If you would like to talk any further let me know, God Bless!

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

Oh and by the way, if anyone is "pushing their beliefs" on anyone, its YOU. Need I remind you that this is the religous forum not a science forum... lol So you are the one who needs to stop waisting your time preaching your beliefs in the big bang and all that rubbish to Christians/theists. I think I speak for all/most theists when I say we are not interested in your athiestic beliefs. Sorry..

---

So let me get this straight a question is posed of "Do you think there is a god?" the only answer that is allowed is the Christian/theist answer because it's posted in the religious forum. Wow.. talk about suppressing information.
The big bang and evolution theories aren't atheistic beliefs. They in no way disprove a god. Why would a god that is all powerful make a natural and explainable solution for everything up until this point, suddenly go I think I'll just poof humans into existence rather make it explainable like I have everything else. I would say if anything, if evolution is not true and a god did poof humans into existence than it would prove the limited power of that god since he couldn't keep continuity of design. Does a god of limited power deserve worship and if so where do we drawn the line at how much power? I have more power than some people should those with less power than me worship me? Does the fact that there is no perfect design rule out the possibility of a perfect designer? If the designer is perfect then everything he designs by extension has to be perfect for everyone otherwise he isn't perfect. Since everything isn't perfect that means no perfect designer that mean either a flawed designer or things came about some other way. So is god flawed/limited or is evolution true?

Also your personal credentials don't mean anything on the internet unless your willing to prove them. I know I'm not willing to prove who I am here, mainly because I'm afraid of religious people finding out who I am. So I suggest you use your posts(answer some biology questions) to prove you know what your talking about instead of claiming it with unprovable claims.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=michealb]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

So let me get this straight a question is posed of "Do you think there is a god?" the only answer that is allowed is the Christian/theist answer because it's posted in the religious forum. Wow.. talk about suppressing information.

---

For you to have found this question it means you were snooping around the religious forum. So don't come on a religious forum and accuse people of forcing their beliefs on you. If you have no interest in hearing what Christians/thiest believe then don't come on a religious forum. It seems only logical to me.

Quote:

---

The big bang and evolution theories aren't atheistic beliefs. They in no way disprove a god. Why would a god that is all powerful make a natural and explainable solution for everything up until this point, suddenly go I think I'll just poof humans into existence rather make it explainable like I have everything else.

---

This your reasoning and it is not making any sense to me, but what makes you think your reasoning is anything like God's

Quote:

---

I would say if anything, if evolution is not true and a god did poof humans into existence than it would prove the limited power of that god since he couldn't keep continuity of design. Does a god of limited power deserve worship and if so where do we drawn the line at how much power? I have more power than some people should those with less power than me worship me? Does the fact that there is no perfect design rule out the possibility of a perfect designer? If the designer is perfect then everything he designs by extension has to be perfect for everyone otherwise he isn't perfect. Since everything isn't perfect that means no perfect designer that mean either a flawed designer or things came about some other way. So is god flawed/limited or is evolution true?

---

This is a circular argument... lol You are drawing your own subjective conclusions that have no factual basis. The premises of your arguments are as questionable as the conclusions.
First of all there is no solid evidence for evolution. Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.
Second of all the Bible clearly states that God created everything perfect until man rebelled against Him and a curse of death was upon the earth. So your perfect creator/ perfect designer argument falls apart right there because God is perfect and his creation was perfect until man messed up and man is still contuing to mess it up.

Quote:

---

Also your personal credentials don't mean anything on the internet unless your willing to prove them. I know I'm not willing to prove who I am here, mainly because I'm afraid of religious people finding out who I am. So I suggest you use your posts(answer some biology questions) to prove you know what your talking about instead of claiming it with unprovable claims.

---

I don't need to prove anything to anyone because at the end of the day I know who I am & what I have achieved, and whether anyone here believes me or not, it does not make a material difference to my life.
I was just giving to an FYi so you can quit with the condescending remarks about scientific knowledge because given that I have studied science on an advanced level for many years, it makes your remarks poignantly contrary to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

For you to have found this question it means you were snooping around the religous forum. So dont come on a religous forum and accuse people of forcing their beliefs on you. If you have no interest in hearing what Christians/thiest believe then dont come on a religious forum. It seems only logical to me.

---

This isn't a religious forum, it's a forum for discussing religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

There is no evidence for God? you are joking right?.... lol who told you that?

There is an insurmountable amount of evidence for God. A lot more evidence for God than there is for that Hoax evolution and the Big bang.
The evidence is there, the only difference is whether you see the evidence as sufficient or not. I see the evidence as more than sufficient while you don't.
So the evidence is there but whether one accepts it as sufficient or not, is a purely subjective opinion

---

Oh, Sassy. PLEASE don't tell me you think that evolution is a hoax! I can respect much of what you've said in this thread (whether I agree or not). The fact is, no one understands 'first cause' yet, so you're certainly entitled to your beliefs about it. But there's no excuse for making such an ignorant comment about the Theory of Evolution. The evidence that the Theory of Evolution is true is overwhelming! Tell me... How old do you think the earth is Sassy?

I briefly read another of your posts where you try to downplay ToE, because it's just a theory. Scientific theories are strong. They are not in any way like my 'theory' that if I leave 5 minutes later for work, my drive time will be shorter because I run into less traffic. Science doesn't use the word theory like the common populace does. When science proposes a theory, it means it is the 'best' explanation we have. ToE is most definitely the best explanation of how complicated organisms came to be. Evolution is a FACT like gravity is a FACT. Please don't fool yourself or worse, try to fool others. It's a tragedy that so many people (mostly Americans) are totally ignorant about evolution and what scientific theories actually mean.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lobrobster

Oh, Sassy. PLEASE don't tell me you think that evolution is a hoax! I can respect much of what you've said in this thread (whether I agree or not). The fact is, no one understands 'first cause' yet, so you're certainly entitled to your beliefs about it. But there's no excuse for making such an ignorant comment about the Theory of Evolution. The evidence that the Theory of Evolution is true is overwhelming!

---

Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing is what you should say. If man really evolve from an ape, then where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.
Furthermore, if we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process? Come on lobrobster you don't need a PHD (post hole digger) to figure this out.

Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY and yet people still blindly follow the myth in the name of "scientific progress" I am even amazed at the at the convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.

Here is what scientist have admitted about evidence for evolution:

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."


Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it. If you believe it as truth despite a lack of evidence then it is by faith that you believe. Evolutionist do not KNOW of man's origins. They can only make assumptions, speculate, theorise and hypothesise.

I know of a scienitist who has been is offering $250K to anyone who can prove evolution beyond a shodow of a doubt. Its been 6 years and no one has been able to do so. So if you think you have 100% evidence for evolution, I will be happy to give you the site where you can submit the proof.

Quote:

---

Tell me... How old do you think the earth is Sassy?

---

The age of the earth is unknowable. If YOU believe it is billions of years old it is by faith because carbon dating uses a number of unvarifiable assuptions as a premise making it subject to inaccuracy.

Quote:

---

I briefly read another of your posts where you try to downplay ToE, because it's just a theory. Scientific theories are strong. They are not in any way like my 'theory' that if I leave 5 minutes later for work, my drive time will be shorter because I run into less traffic. Science doesn't use the word theory like the common populace does. When science proposes a theory, it means it is the 'best' explanation we have. ToE is most definitely the best explanation of how complicated organisms came to be. Evolution is a FACT like gravity is a FACT. Please don't fool yourself or worse, try to fool others. It's a tragedy that so many people (mostly Americans) are totally ignorant about evolution and what scientific theories actually. .

---

Like I said, don't just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."

---

Really, we're resorting to quote mining now?

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

Evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly missing is what you should say. If man really evolve from an ape, then where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.
Furthermore, if we evolved from a lower species, then why is it that the apes didn't evolve in the evolutionary process? Come on lobrobster you don't need a PHD (post hole digger) to figure this out.

Evolutionists even admit to the lack of fossil evidence to prove the their THEORY and yet people still blindly follow the myth in the name of "scientific progress" I am even amazed at the at the convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science.

Here is what scientist have admitted about evidence for evolution:

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...."

Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change."


Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

So show me fossil evidence for evolution and I will believe in it. If you believe it as truth despite a lack of evidence then it is by faith that you believe. Evolutionist do not KNOW of man's origins. They can only make assumptions, speculate, theorise and hypothesise.

I know of a scienitist who has been is offering $250K to anyone who can prove evolution beyond a shodow of a doubt. Its been 6 years and no one has been able to do so. So if you think you have 100% evidence for evolution, I will be happy to give you the site where you can submit the proof.





The age of the earth is unknowable. If YOU believe it is billions of years old it is by faith because carbon dating uses a number of unvarifiable assuptions as a premise making it subject to inaccuracy.



Like I said, don't just make empty claims. If you say evolution is fact like gravity prove it to me beyond a shodow of a doubt. I want 100% evidence to qualify evolution as a fact. Otherwise your claims are nothing but declarations of faith.

---

Everything you just said... I could say the same about the THEORY of creationism. Where is the proof?

[QUOTE=retsoksirhc]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

Everything you just said...I could say the same about the THEORY of creationism. Where is the proof?

---

I am not the one who is claiming FACT here.

I believe creationism makes a more logical conclution given the complexity and intricacy of the universe. There is more evidence for a intelligent designer than there is for a big explosion that came from no where and magically bacame the vast and complex universe we see today. It just sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus to me.
Despite my strong beliefs I am not going to claim it is Fact. So I would appreciate it if those who believe in evolution were to be reasonable enough to admit the same.

Darwin

Sassy there are tons of transitional fossils, click the link below for a brief summary. Go to your local natural history museum if you want to see them yourself.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Here is a link explaining what a transitional fossil is so we don't have to rehash a similar what is a scientific theory argument except for tranitional fossil.
Transitional fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please don't use that tired old argument. Say God put transitional fossils in the relevant order of the rocks to test our faith if you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sassyT

For you to have found this question it means you were snooping around the religious forum. So don't come on a religious forum and accuse people of forcing their beliefs on you. If you have no interest in hearing what Christians/thiest believe then don't come on a religious forum. It seems only logical to me.

---

I am interested in hearing what Christians/ thiests believe. I've said many times that it is important for me as an atheist to know what is going on in the heads of the majority. What I said about you is that your not interested in learning anything because no matter how many times your told that your using the wrong definitions for something you still come back with the wrong definition. If you continue to use the wrong definition for a word and use the wrong definition as part of your answer. What am I to think other than you have an agenda?

Quote:

---

This your reasoning and it is not making any sense to me, but what makes you think your reasoning is anything like God's. This is a circular argument... lol You are drawing your own subjective conclusions that have no factual basis.
Second of all the Bible clearly states that God created everything perfect until man rebelled against Him and a curse of death was upon the earth. So your perfect creator/ perfect designer argument falls apart right there because God is perfect and his creation was perfect until man messed up and man is still contuing to mess it up.

---

My reasoning doesn't have to be like God's. If a being is perfect all must think so otherwise he isn't perfect. That is the problem with perfection. You have to resort to logic and logic would state that everything a perfect designer designs has to be perfect otherwise he isn't perfect. Even if the system was perfect at one point if it breaks down to a point where it is not longer perfect it means that the design wasn't perfect regardless of whose fault it is that the system broke down because a perfect designer would have foreseen the breakdown so regardless of whose logic you use an imperfect design means an imperfect designer or in this case no designer. Also I can't give you a factual argument when talking about something that doesn't exist.
[QUOTE]
First of all there is no solid evidence for evolution. Where are all those half man/half ape fossils which should be abundant in the earth's soil layers? They don't exist.
[QUOTE]

Really?! Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo georgicus, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo cepranensis, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, and Homo sapiens idaltu to name a few transitional fossils. Fossils are never abundant. Why would you think that? If every creature that died formed a fossil you would be right but fossils take a very specific circumstances to form. You know that fossils aren't actually the bones of the animal but are minerals from the ground that slowly replaced the bones. This doesn't happen to the majority of the animals that die because they didn't die in a location that allows it. Disproving evolution should be very easy if it was wrong all it would take would be to find one fossil out of place in the soil layers but every fossil found has supported evolution. I have millions of fossils that support my point of view where is one that supports yours?

[QUOTE=sassyT]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by retsoksirhc

I am not the one who is claiming FACT here.

I believe creationism makes a more logical conclution given the complexity and intricacy of the universe. There is more evidence for a inteligent designer than there is for a big explosion that came from no where and magically bacame the vast and complex universe we see today. it just sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus to me.
Despite my strong beliefs i am not going to claim it is Fact. So i would appreciate it if those who believe in evolution were to be reasonable enough to admit the same.

---

Nor was I.

Like you, I also haven't claimed anything as fact.

Some (most) creationists use the bible as absolute proof of the existence of god and creationism, even though (most) atheists disagree.
Some (most) evolutionists use evolution and scientific study as proof of the existence of evolution, even though (most) creationists disagree.

That THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. Individually, one opinion on a help desk site really isn't going to matter.

I've got an idea... how about everyone stop trying to "win" this argument. It's been going on for centuries. I'm pretty sure a series of bits on a server somewhere isn't going to end it.

Can we get back to the original post?