Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

6 of one, half dozen of another. What ever the description of the Earth is really irrelevant as is the order in which any of these events are described as it is just a story of the creation, not a text book of the creation.

- - - Updated - - -

What core concept of all of modern scientific theory? Here is what he gave me as proof of his argument:

 

Ah yes, "that bit is a metaphor", the recurring refrain of believers who have been shown another error in the bible. Whatever helps you get by.

Falsifiability, as popularised by Karl Popper.

 

If you would take time to look it up, you would see I am right. It might dumbfound you for a bit, while you adjust your thinking, but its a simple idea, and completely logical. You cant get all possible data, so you dont know if there is an exception. Simple.

As for ridiculous, you are taking the stance that you understand science better than
Dr Feynman, or, for that matter, everyone else in science.

Go ahead, and look. "Can a theory be proved" or some such wording. Its not "my position" at all.
Its just how things are.

 

Holy cow, I'm a psychic. I wrote this post before refreshing the thread...

And lo and behold, PatriotNews completely reinterprets Genesis in one of the more ridiculous post-hoc retcons I have seen since Alter2Ego stopped posting regularly.

Speaking of me predicting things...

So here, PatriotNews is saying that it's ridiculous that nothing science can be proven. But then there's PatriotNews saying that he/she got nothing from a post of mine which included a link to the Karl Popper essay that pretty much explains the concept. It's a basic tenet not just of science but of all of empiricism that nothing can be proven. Science does not operate on proofs. The best you can hope for is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Yes, you really did. You said the earth doesn't exist in those verses. What did I misunderstand?
You said the bright part of the sky is the part facing the sun and the dark part of the sky faces away. What else could this possibly mean? Try to make some logical sense of what you said. Sounds like fun.
You don't address the moon's description as being a bright light in its own right.
Perhaps an absurd reduction of your points, but they started as absurd, so it wasn't too far of a trip.

 

I, for one, am shocked that someone who places complete, unquestioning faith in an ancient tome has a hard time understanding the idea that something cannot be 100% proven to be true. Shocked!

 

I have no idea what any of that has to do with the current arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do liberals expect me to do their homework for them. If you think you can prove your argument then provide a link, don't tell me to go find proof of what you are saying.

 

I sure did address what Paul was saying in this and other posts. Also you should be fully aware that no one has to address one specific post. In debate forum all replies are fair game. Btw, if you finally do find where I am factually wrong address THAT, not interpersonal mumbo jumbo.

Oh I was waitng for the punch line! You were not joking? Ok let me say that for some reason short responses are worthless. advanced subjects can not be debated or rebutted etc with a one liner, or even a two>ten liners lol.

Simple is not necessarily brief, nor is brief or simple (arguments) often adequate in debating complex subjects. That is two good reasons eh? Simple and brief are often lazy or an indication of ignorance if answering with anything but a cut and paste. More reasons not to be breif or simple in debate. Anyway evidence to support the existence of God has been posted already. Megatons of the stuff as well as links to validate those claims that validate and lend evidence to support Gods existance. Craig, Behe, Koon, and many more PhDs ThDs all have the answers and evidences and their web sites provide you with the all information you say doesn’t exist, not one liners, no they provide semester hours of evidence. And they mostly deal with only one line of evidiences. There are many more! The fact is evidence for the existence of God is everywhere on the web, some good some bad, and I have posted good valid evidences here at PF in an sickeningly redundant manner.If you are looking for one of those one line responses that covers the existence of God it does NOT exist. Sorry there is no way around it, you will have to bone up on increasing your attention span. Then you must accept ALL types of evidence or be severely lacking in the material (evidence) that it takes to make an intelligent decision of ‘does God exist ? So, again why don’t you address the specifics of what I said? I will tell you why; You can’t .

Nor have I, not directly, but they do indirectly as a matter of fact. Havent you heard this tidbit; ‘evolution is no longer a theory its FACT’ That was said here in this forum, in this thread (I think). That’s just one example of the word salad we have to deal with, ie “science doesn’t deal with absolutes but evolution is a (absolutely a) fact, …..REALLY?

That is the seculars tactics…remember sky daddy? Nausea oh morbus oh of geminus vexillum quod simulator of incredibilis !

Thanks, your going to need it, I have God watching my back.

reva

 

I did not reinterpret the Book of Genesis, I just quoted it directly. You people seem to be disturbed by the fact that it actually matches the Big Bang Theory.

Your Karl Popper does what? Why did I find this then?

 

I already did my homework. I knew this stuff by the time I was 10 yrs old.
Why dont cons know any basic s cience?

here is a variety of sources

http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm

http://thebigbangtonow.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/11/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081004094805AAzyeZF

 

Your are not advancing your arguments by misquoting me your misquote of what I said.

 

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

Of course!!!

It may well be an absolute fact. its just not possible to prove it.

 

If you think that, you don't understand what she said.

 

Now you give me five links with no quotes or facts that you want me to glean from the links. Do you know how this works?

 

Let's review: A Theory cannot be proved.

A Theory can be a fact.

"It may well be an absolute fact. its just not possible to prove it."

Now a fact cannot be proved? You are right, I don't understand what she said.

 

Yes, a fact cannot be proven in science. NOTHING can be conclusively and objectively proven, in the real world that science deals with (as opposed to the abstract, such as the walled garden of pure logic and maths). That's because, no matter how strong you think your evidence is, all it takes is one piece of convincing evidence to the contrary to show that your theory is, at best, not completely accurate. And since you can never possess all possible pieces of evidence, total and incontrovertible proof is impossible.

 

At what point is it fair to say that the poster you're debating with has a fundamental disconnect from reality?

First of all, because theory and fact both mean different things in science. Secondly, because when talking about facts in science, we acknowledge the nature of empiricism and treat it with the due respect. Thirdly, because you're referring to an internet blog. The fact is that empiricism has no way to "prove" anything. It just isn't possible within the framework. All that science can do is prove beyond reasonable doubt. And that's the category evolution, germ theory, gravity, etc. belong to.

 

mmmmmmmmm......11 pages ago?

 

I just creamed all of you and your arguments and you act as if I'm the crazy one and you've won the debate. Talk about disconnect from reality.

 

Now I see why you call yourself Prof_Sarcastic... you are just joking right?

 

If you are going to wrap yourself in the mantel of logic then be logical through and through. Which came first into being as humans developed intelligence? The supernatural world, because fear of the inexplicable has always been with us and a belief in the supernatural preceded an awareness of -- say -- the mechanics behind gravity.

So believers in the natural world as the be all and end all of existence are Johnny-Come-Latelys, not first on the scene. Granted they are doing a fine job proving the existence of the natural world as explanations but there remains a host of things on which they still bounce.

 

You have proved, once again, that longer is not better.
We were discussing Paul's comment that if he states science can be wrong, atheists flip out and call him names.
You have done a second long screed that completely avoids the topic.
The evidence would be quite succinct, if you had any.
Instead, you have changed the subject to proving god does or does not exist.
The subject the rest of us were discussing was not complex.
You are right. You can address anything you like. A small request, though. If you are going to pretend to address me directly by quoting me, have your response, in at least some tangential way, relate to what my post was about.
Otherwise, you come across as fairly addled.

 

On the contrary those who want to believe have provided endless proof acceptable to the day and time when believe was the coin of the realm. Just because science has managed to disprove vast amounts of it does not mean that tomorrow some current claim will turn out to have been true all along. Now as an atheist myself, I rather doubt it will happen, but I can't KNOW that it won't.