DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> just another scientific debate
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 131, (reverse)
AuthorThread
11/07/2007 03:43:46 PM · #51
Originally posted by ryand:

...all of them have answers even if i dont know what the answers are to them.


Funny, that's usually where creationists cry foul over scientific issues.

Originally posted by ryand:

He held the sun in the sky overnight one time because His people that He loved needed that...


Ever hold a marshmallow in place over a campfire for a few minutes?

Originally posted by theSaj:

...when a theory is proved it becomes a law. The truth is that in science we have thousands of theories - which don't happen to be provable.


Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Scientific theories and laws are BOTH considered to be proven, but they apply to different things. A scientific law describes a single action with a predictable result (usually with a mathematical equation), while a scientific theory describes more complex process. Both must be supported by actual evidence, both must be inherently DISprovable, and both are generally regarded as proven fact unless proven otherwise.

Message edited by author 2007-11-07 15:44:08.
11/07/2007 03:57:49 PM · #52
Originally posted by scalvert:

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Scientific theories and laws are BOTH considered to be proven, but they apply to different things. A scientific law describes a single action with a predictable result (usually with a mathematical equation), while a scientific theory describes more complex process. Both must be supported by actual evidence, both must be inherently DISprovable, and both are generally regarded as proven fact unless proven otherwise.

Let me see if I have this straight. It's valid for non-theists to maintain that (macro) evolution is true because it's "generally regarded ( by non-theists ) as proven fact unless proven otherwise", but it's not valid for Christians to maintain that God exists because it's "generally regarded ( by Christians ) as proven fact unless proven otherwise".
Somehow, that seems to indicate that there are different rules for different positions - unless I either misunderstood your last point, or misunderstood the arguments against theism offered in prior posts.
11/07/2007 04:52:32 PM · #53
I think a big difference between the two groups, is that scientists look for answers using the world (and universe) around them.

Those who get their answers from faith are reading answers in ancient texts or are being told answers by people who read ancient texts.

Two totally different worlds.
11/07/2007 05:03:29 PM · #54
Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Scalvert:

Both must be supported by actual evidence, both must be inherently DISprovable, and both are generally regarded as proven fact unless proven otherwise.


Somehow, that seems to indicate that there are different rules for different positions - unless I either misunderstood your last point, or misunderstood the arguments against theism offered in prior posts.


Try highlighting the other parts of that statement. Religious precepts cannot be proven false because they're based purely on belief, and a follower simply won't believe whatever is offered as proof.

Message edited by author 2007-11-07 17:06:21.
11/07/2007 05:21:04 PM · #55
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Scalvert:

Both must be supported by actual evidence, both must be inherently DISprovable, and both are generally regarded as proven fact unless proven otherwise.


Somehow, that seems to indicate that there are different rules for different positions - unless I either misunderstood your last point, or misunderstood the arguments against theism offered in prior posts.


Try highlighting the other parts of that statement. Religious precepts cannot be proven false because they're based purely on belief, and a follower simply won't believe whatever is offered as proof.

True. The difference is that the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory of (macro) evolution HAVE been proven otherwise, again and again and again and again and again, while the "generally regarded, proven facts" of faith have NEVER been proven otherwise.

Message edited by author 2007-11-07 17:21:23.
11/07/2007 05:23:59 PM · #56
Originally posted by RonB:


True. The difference is that the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory of (macro) evolution HAVE been proven otherwise, again and again and again and again and again, while the "generally regarded, proven facts" of faith have NEVER been proven otherwise.


Oh really? Macro evolution has been disproved? Would you like to cite examples? Sources?
11/07/2007 05:36:11 PM · #57
Originally posted by RonB:

...the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory of (macro) evolution HAVE been proven otherwise, again and again and again and again and again, while the "generally regarded, proven facts" of faith have NEVER been proven otherwise.


If evolution had actually been proven false (even once), the theory would be gone. Apparently the last two Popes didn't get that memo because they both accepted evolution. Religion has not been proven false because it can't be tested. For that reason, you can't actually prove that God isn't Zeus. Since religion is belief-based, you can just believe whatever you like and ignore any contradicting evidence. The physical impossibilities of stopping the earth's rotation for a day, flooding the entire earth with water or fossil evidence much older than biblical history allows can be simply dismissed with "It's a miracle!"

Message edited by author 2007-11-07 17:38:49.
11/07/2007 05:47:28 PM · #58
Originally posted by smartypants:

Originally posted by RonB:


True. The difference is that the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory of (macro) evolution HAVE been proven otherwise, again and again and again and again and again, while the "generally regarded, proven facts" of faith have NEVER been proven otherwise.


Oh really? Macro evolution has been disproved? Would you like to cite examples? Sources?


I believe that you misread my post. I didn't say that the theory itself had been disproved. I said the the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory had been proven otherwise many, many times. That leads, of course, to having to Update the Theory to accommodate "new" "facts", something that Christians do NOT have to do with their Theory ( Faith ).

To wit:

"The time between discovery, scientific publication, and popular education has shortened dramatically in the Information Age. At the museum, all the scientists point to changes in the theory of evolution in the past decade."

"Birds have more in common with dinosaurs than any other life forms, and yet this is an insight that has only gained in popular acceptance in recent years"

Both quotations from the article "evolving theory of evolution: It's a bush, not a tree" published in The Carnegie, Nov/Dec 2000.
11/07/2007 05:57:39 PM · #59
Originally posted by RonB:

I didn't say that the theory itself had been disproved. I said the the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory had been proven otherwise many, many times. That leads, of course, to having to Update the Theory to accommodate "new" "facts", something that Christians do NOT have to do with their Theory ( Faith ).


That'll be because there are no facts in the small t theory you mention in the second case. Similarly it never has been proven or disproven because there's nothing to prove. You either believe it or you don't. I never quite understand the weird need that creationists feel to appeal to science for some justification of their irrational belief systems. It's a belief - you don't need someone to prove it. Just accept it. That's the whole point.

Message edited by author 2007-11-07 17:59:00.
11/07/2007 05:58:06 PM · #60
Originally posted by RonB:


I believe that you misread my post. I didn't say that the theory itself had been disproved. I said the the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory had been proven otherwise many, many times. That leads, of course, to having to Update the Theory to accommodate "new" "facts", something that Christians do NOT have to do with their Theory ( Faith ).

To wit:

"The time between discovery, scientific publication, and popular education has shortened dramatically in the Information Age. At the museum, all the scientists point to changes in the theory of evolution in the past decade."

"Birds have more in common with dinosaurs than any other life forms, and yet this is an insight that has only gained in popular acceptance in recent years"

Both quotations from the article "evolving theory of evolution: It's a bush, not a tree" published in The Carnegie, Nov/Dec 2000.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by facts that have been "proven otherwise". New evidence crops up and the theory of evolution is tweaked to fit the evidence, the theory becoming evermore accurate.
11/07/2007 06:05:50 PM · #61
Originally posted by smartypants:

Originally posted by RonB:


I believe that you misread my post. I didn't say that the theory itself had been disproved. I said the the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory had been proven otherwise many, many times. That leads, of course, to having to Update the Theory to accommodate "new" "facts", something that Christians do NOT have to do with their Theory ( Faith ).

To wit:

"The time between discovery, scientific publication, and popular education has shortened dramatically in the Information Age. At the museum, all the scientists point to changes in the theory of evolution in the past decade."

"Birds have more in common with dinosaurs than any other life forms, and yet this is an insight that has only gained in popular acceptance in recent years"

Both quotations from the article "evolving theory of evolution: It's a bush, not a tree" published in The Carnegie, Nov/Dec 2000.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by facts that have been "proven otherwise". New evidence crops up and the theory of evolution is tweaked to fit the evidence, the theory becoming evermore accurate.

First it was a "generally accepted, proven fact" that dinosaurs were cold-blooded and related to reptiles, then, new "evidence" caused the evolutionists to have a new "generally accepted, proven fact" that dinosaurs were warm-blooded and related to birds. Unless I'm mistaken, that implyies that the old "generally accepted, proven facts" were proven otherwise by the new "generally accepted, proven facts".

Of course, to be fair, neither "generally accepted, proven fact" has actually been "proven" ( that I know of ).

FWIW, the Theory of God's existence ( faith ) has never had to be "tweaked" to fit new evidence.
11/07/2007 06:10:40 PM · #62
Originally posted by RonB:

I said the the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory had been proven otherwise many, many times. That leads, of course, to having to Update the Theory to accommodate "new" "facts", something that Christians do NOT have to do with their Theory ( Faith ).


The changes you reference support the overall theory and increase our knowledge of the details rather than disprove it. If Christians believed all the "facts" universally, then there wouldn't be different denominations. P.S.- unless you're Roman Catholic, you're not really a Christian and have no hope of salvation.
11/07/2007 06:17:21 PM · #63
Originally posted by RonB:

it was a "generally accepted, proven fact" that dinosaurs were cold-blooded and related to reptiles, then, new "evidence" caused the evolutionists to have a new "generally accepted, proven fact" that dinosaurs were warm-blooded and related to birds.


There was no "Theory of Cold Blooded Dinosaurs." That was a single hypothesis, not a theory, and although most scientists believed it based on available evidence at the time, a correction only helps to show which species led to others on the evolutionary family tree. If evolution weren't a fact of nature, we'd never be able to discern that dinosaurs were related to birds to make that correction in the first place!

Message edited by author 2007-11-07 18:19:05.
11/07/2007 08:12:09 PM · #64
Originally posted by RonB:

FWIW, the Theory of God's existence ( faith ) has never had to be "tweaked" to fit new evidence.

It wasn't a "tweak" which differentiated "Christianity" from the Judaism of which Christ himself was a devout adherent and proponent?
11/07/2007 08:54:31 PM · #65
Originally posted by RonB:

[responding to gingerbaker]

The post of gingerbaker's from which you quote contains the following, which really summarizes your reply perfectly: "So, to me, religious 'faith' represents a willfully blithe cognitive dissonance."

Why do believers clamour for scientific proof of their beliefs, while at the same time dismissing theoretical principles which they don't really understand?

I also find responses like the following particularly troubling, because in their heartless sterile issuing, they lack all empathy, paving the way for most complex and important issues facing humanity to be dismissed with convenient one-liners.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Why do children suffer illnesses and die?

Because of the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden

11/07/2007 09:02:53 PM · #66
Originally posted by RonB:

FWIW, the Theory of God's existence ( faith ) has never had to be "tweaked" to fit new evidence.

No? So, I suppose the Aztec faithful who purposefully made children cry before they were torn apart in sacrifice to the god Tláloc were merely expressing this unchanging faith in god differently? Kind of like a multi-cultural pantheon that really only expresses faith in beautiful, different, diverse ways, huh?
11/08/2007 01:05:30 AM · #67
Originally posted by theSaj:

why do so many atheists feel the need to constantly attack religion and to try to create a false barrier precluding anyone with religious beliefs from science.


It's a clue about atheism. Atheism is actually a religion.
11/08/2007 08:59:45 AM · #68
Originally posted by scalvert:


There was no "Theory of Cold Blooded Dinosaurs." That was a single hypothesis, not a theory, and although most scientists believed it based on available evidence at the time, a correction only helps to show which species led to others on the evolutionary family tree. If evolution weren't a fact of nature, we'd never be able to discern that dinosaurs were related to birds to make that correction in the first place!


Speaking of which, I have yet to hear somebody on the creationist side explain why dinosaurs aren't in the Bible. It always seems to be a sore subject...
11/08/2007 09:35:26 AM · #69
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

I said the the "generally regarded, proven facts" of the theory had been proven otherwise many, many times. That leads, of course, to having to Update the Theory to accommodate "new" "facts", something that Christians do NOT have to do with their Theory ( Faith ).


The changes you reference support the overall theory and increase our knowledge of the details rather than disprove it. If Christians believed all the "facts" universally, then there wouldn't be different denominations. P.S.- unless you're Roman Catholic, you're not really a Christian and have no hope of salvation.

First of all, I did not, nor did I intend to, reference the overall theory. I said that "generally accepted, proven facts" had been proven otherwise. Logically, if they had NOT been proven otherwise, they would still be "generally accepted" as "proven facts". I offered the change in what were "generally accepted, proven facts" about dinosaurs as evidence of that.

Secondly, I did not, nor did I intend to, reference ALL of the "facts" that Christians accept - I only referenced the existence of God.

Thirdly, the state of ( really ) being a Christian ( or not ) is not one subject to Papal decree. No man ( not even the Pope ) is capable of making that judgment. It is for God, and God ONLY, to judge.
11/08/2007 09:56:43 AM · #70
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:

it was a "generally accepted, proven fact" that dinosaurs were cold-blooded and related to reptiles, then, new "evidence" caused the evolutionists to have a new "generally accepted, proven fact" that dinosaurs were warm-blooded and related to birds.


There was no "Theory of Cold Blooded Dinosaurs." That was a single hypothesis, not a theory, and although most scientists believed it based on available evidence at the time, a correction only helps to show which species led to others on the evolutionary family tree. If evolution weren't a fact of nature, we'd never be able to discern that dinosaurs were related to birds to make that correction in the first place!

You are, in essence, conceding that scientists see no problem with permitting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of school children to be taught, as FACT, that which they ( the scientists ) always maintain an option on to later decide that those "proven facts" are no longer "generally accepted".
11/08/2007 09:57:00 AM · #71
Originally posted by RonB:

Thirdly, the state of ( really ) being a Christian ( or not ) is not one subject to Papal decree. No man ( not even the Pope ) is capable of making that judgment. It is for God, and God ONLY, to judge.

But yet, if I don't conform to a certain specific criteria in the eyes of those in charge of a Papal decree, they're ready to stand up and say that I'm NOT a Christian.
11/08/2007 09:59:17 AM · #72
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:

FWIW, the Theory of God's existence ( faith ) has never had to be "tweaked" to fit new evidence.

It wasn't a "tweak" which differentiated "Christianity" from the Judaism of which Christ himself was a devout adherent and proponent?

Christianity's view of God's existence and Judaism's view of God's existence are the same. He exists. No tweaking necessary.
11/08/2007 09:59:39 AM · #73
Originally posted by RonB:

You are, in essence, conceding that scientists see no problem with permitting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of school children to be taught, as FACT, that which they ( the scientists ) always maintain an option on to later decide that those "proven facts" are no longer "generally accepted".

Yeah, what's your point?

You think that the church didn't go along with the basic premise that the world was flat for a long time?

We learn. And we learn by being open-minded in the face of facts that disprove the previous commonly held theory/premise/law.

ETA: It's called growth and progress......perhaps the evolution of the species?

BTW, I *do* believe in God, but I don't believe I have the answers.

And Louis and Mary Leakey were childhood heroes of mine.

I think God created evolution and then wiped any proof of His existence just to f*ck with us!......8>)

The longer I'm around, and the more I learn, the more I realize the depth and breadth of my ignorance about sooooooooo many things. It's kind of humbling. These days the easiest thing for me is to believe that I do not know, and I'm willing to learn.

Like PhotoShop, for instance......science, or a miracle?

Message edited by author 2007-11-08 10:04:45.
11/08/2007 10:19:44 AM · #74
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

[responding to gingerbaker]

The post of gingerbaker's from which you quote contains the following, which really summarizes your reply perfectly: "So, to me, religious 'faith' represents a willfully blithe cognitive dissonance."

Why do believers clamour for scientific proof of their beliefs, while at the same time dismissing theoretical principles which they don't really understand?

I can't speak for ALL believers, but I have never clamoured for scientific proof of my belief. Nor do I dismiss theoretical principles which I don't really understand. I accept them as just what they purport to be - theoretical principles ( with the accent on theoretical ).

Originally posted by Louis:

I also find responses like the following particularly troubling, because in their heartless sterile issuing, they lack all empathy, paving the way for most complex and important issues facing humanity to be dismissed with convenient one-liners.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Why do children suffer illnesses and die?

Because of the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden

If I were to say that thousands of New Orleans residents suffered because of Hurricane Katrina, would you view that as heartless sterile issuing and lacking empathy as well? A convenient one-liner?
You could find any number of failings FOLLOWING hurricane Katrina which exacerbated the situation, but the root cause was still the hurricane.

My statement was not meant to be lacking in empathy, and just as with the hurrican, you could find any number of failings which exacerbated the situation, but the fall of man was still the root cause, as I see it.
11/08/2007 10:24:49 AM · #75
Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:

FWIW, the Theory of God's existence ( faith ) has never had to be "tweaked" to fit new evidence.

No? So, I suppose the Aztec faithful who purposefully made children cry before they were torn apart in sacrifice to the god Tláloc were merely expressing this unchanging faith in god differently? Kind of like a multi-cultural pantheon that really only expresses faith in beautiful, different, diverse ways, huh?

It is illogical to compare the Aztec view of gods with the Christian view of God. The Aztecs believed in hundreds of gods, not just one.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 09:54:03 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/28/2021 09:54:03 PM EDT.