Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

But the side of the Earth facing the Sun is day, and the side facing away is night. Why is that funny, you didn't know that?

- - - Updated - - -

Did you say that science can't prove facts or something like that?

 

The side facing the Sun is day, and the side facing away is night.

 

The one facing the Sun is day, and the side of the Earth facing away is night. You think that is really bad and ridiculous. Okay.

 

I just think that you took someone's quote out of context, I never claimed to be smarter than him.

 

Thank you for answering. My point, being there is just the same amount of evidence for the existence of god as there is for the existence of leprechauns so would you not use the same reasoning and logic to arrive at the answer?

One reason, and Ill give you this, is the fear of Pascal's Wager....."what if you're wrong?"...well, that's a flawed argument also. for example, who can you trust the god you believe in, is the right one?

Just saying. Thanks for being honest. Don't see much of that around here.

 

Because you didn't discuss the earth. You talked about the sky.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. The earth didn't exist yet, remember?

 

Of course you have an Earth, that is how God separated the day from the night.

 

Definitely the 'what if you are wrong?' argument is no reason to believe in God. That's because if God -- as embraced by the average Christian -- exists then he is omniscient and therefore he cannot be tricked and you cannot lie to HIM. Thus he will not be impressed by "I'd better believe in you just in case you actually are real."

So the reason to believe in God is faith. Now as to faith that's where the priests were clever. While the Catholic Church has always pointed at relics and tales of sainthood as buttresses to faith they -- just like the Protestant sects -- have always pointed towards faith as being the cornerstone of their religion. You believe in God in the absence of proof because God demands faith from HIS followers. Pretty neat eh? "Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof!" And so far as it goes they are correct.

But it comes full circle then, in order for atheists to disprove the existence of God they have to be able to prove that HE as a concept is outside science, but how can you prove that something capable [according to the religious] of knowing everything and of doing anything does not exist? All you can do is admit that you have no proof.

Sometimes I think that what atheists should be trying to do is prove that God and -- if you will -- leprechauns exist using scientific methodology. The very fact that they would inevitably fail so to do might begin to make a difference in those who profess faith in the absence of proof. I mean if science with all its fantastic technology to hand cannot prove that God exists then perhaps that's because . . . God in fact DOES NOT EXIST.

As for your last point, I don't mind being civilized in these discussions and tackling any idea tossed into the arena. It's just that sometimes I do not comprehend what the other person actually wants.

 

He did that when you said the earth didn't exist.
Try again.
Should I quote Genesis again?

 

No, the Earth didn't exist when it was a void.

 

No, you said Feynman was wrong, or, his quote is "out of context" tho it clearly is not; you say that a theory can be proved. He says that in cannot. So......

You will not accept it that you do not know more than a Nobel physicist, and all the other scientists.

That is fine, you announced you'd never been proved wrong, and you probably want to stick with that, for whatever reason. We see it all the time here, people who simply are psychologically incapable of admitting they are wrong about anything.

It couldnt be more obvious that you got this wrong, but its getting to be a bit like taunting for me
to bring it up again. Im satisfied you dont have the capacity to accept being wrong, so there is no more to say here.

 

What is it that you want me to admit that I'm wrong to? That science cannot prove a fact? Yes, I provided several example of theories that turned out to be facts. Yes, I think that it is possible that he was quoted out of context because it wasn't his article, but someone else who was quoting him.

 

The Big Bang is based upon the idea that the clump was composed of matter as it exists today. Therefore it's foolish because the only matter that explodes today is that found in stars. We know that star stuff changes into various elements. If the Big Bang occurred then the clump was just a tremendous single star. You would still be faced with the question of where did the stuff that made up that single star come from.

 

It's impossible to construct a day/night sequence with a four season cycle on a flat surface. Anyone who ever believed in a flat Earth was dumber than a bed bug. People who traveled in ancient times knew that the Earth wasn't flat.

 

The topic dear, was that you said a scientific theory can be proved true.
It cant be.
You were wrong, and you are unwilling to admit it. Its that simple.

- - - Updated - - -

How did you get to where you know more than any theoretical astrophysicist?

 

That's when he defined day and night. Shall I repost it, or have you read the first ten verses of Genesis?

 

Yes, I named several that were proved to be true. Why would I admit I'm wrong when I'm not.

 

Your second point was one of the proofs offered by the Greeks. They noted correctly the Earth must be curved because they could see the masts of an approaching ship before they could see the hull

 

Ancient travelers also noticed that the constellations changed as they went from North to South. And as I wrote, it's impossible to create a day/night sequence and a four season cycle on a flat Earth.

 

But I dont know if the ancients had enough knowledge to be able to decide if the four season cycle could be a proof though

 

If they weren't smart enough to figure that out why should they be trusted when they yammer about gods, spirits, demons, angels, heaven and hell?

 

I didn't say they were not smart enough I said they didn't have the knowledge

 

You don't understand falsifiability. You don't understand empiricism. You don't understand how your interpretation of Genesis makes zero sense and really has no place in rational discussion. You have no understanding of science, otherwise you wouldn't continue to assert things like that we have "faith" in the big bang theory. You don't understand the evidence or how it fits together, otherwise even if your definition of faith made sense you wouldn't claim that it was equivalent to the faith we have in a deity which not only has absolutely no valid supporting evidence but cannot be proven or disproven even in theory. You have quite the stunning case of Dunning-Krüger going on here.

Different as in they both mean things different from their respective colloquial meanings.

No, I'm trying to clarify complex concepts. The basis for science, and the things which inform all scientific proceedings, are materialism and empiricism. And you clearly don't understand one or both of them.

 

Yes, and it's kind of sad that your understanding of science is so poor that you find this core principle of science to be strange.

 

Do you still not understand that 'void' means empty? My water bottle is void, that doesn't mean it's non-existent.