[michealb]

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.

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.

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.

[De Maria]

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

[De Maria]

I really hope you see the flaw in this point.

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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[Capuchin]

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! :)

[De Maria]

I never said I was wrong.

But when you said,

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.

There is nothing wrong with assumptions.

I never said we didn't.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

[michealb]

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.

[De Maria]

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.

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

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.

- 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.

then you turn around and say that God made them.

That is true.

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

You're learning.

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

[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.

It tends to irk you when you are proven wrong.

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?

, 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.

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

Ok.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Rubbish again.

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

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.

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.

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

[De Maria]

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.

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?

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

Still not the subject of our discussion.

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?

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?

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.

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

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:

Answers based on observation and experimentation (Science)

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

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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[NeedKarma]

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.

[retsoksirhc]

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.

[De Maria]

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.

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.

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.

blind faith

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

Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

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?

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

What the hell does that mean??

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.

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.

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:

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

Example?

[De Maria]

Actually you did that very thing to me.

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

[De Maria]

Who says I don't understand it?

I do.

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.

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?

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.

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

I'm not a fundie.

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

[sassyT]

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?

[NeedKarma]

Do you have factual reasons to belive he doesnt exit?

Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia