It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What's wrong with a hypothesis? They need to be pursued. Likewise though, a hypothesis is not fact.
Awesome, I will do my best to facilitate that process through prayer and any other means you're open to.
Easy math. God proven? = yes. Evolution proven? If yes, the God yes + Evolution yes = God utilized mechanism called evolution. You really want be to be "open" to denying what I know to be true? That sounds more like self-deception than open-mindedness.
They are a very strong voice when they teach 1,600 people per year and publish articles read by additional thousands.
Gotcha. How many were scientists? Testimony isn't applicable in science. Unless you have a number, I don't think you can say scientists (key word being scientists) think this.
A big part of the discussion seems to be whether evolution is a hypothesis or a theory. By denoting through comparison the differences between things such as "The Big Bang Theory" with "Evolution" I'm working on illustrating exactly WHY evolution is in fact a hypothesis via the scientic method.
Originally posted by Prote
I have been following this thread for a while, just like the other christianity thread where these two are neck deep in it.
Originally posted by Prote
Personally, I don't believe or disbelieve either side, it is difficult to debate two issues which are so lacking in "fact". Having said this, I do find myself siding with shauny. Saint dismisses evolution
Originally posted by Prote
because it is lacking in fact but blindly sinks into the bible due to "personal experience". Well, about 15 years ago, I was chased down the street by an 8 ft orange (seriously).
Originally posted by Prote
It was some personal experience but I do not believe 8 ft oranges exist.
Originally posted by Prote
In addition, I do not think any religion holds much water at all, so I am prepared to admit my bias.
Originally posted by Prote
I mention it because everyone believes things that are convenient for them based on the world they live in and the information they have been fed throughout their life,
Originally posted by Prote
it takes a lot of "proof" to sway someone away from those beliefs, whatever they are.
Originally posted by Prote
I would be happy to watch the grudge match in the debate forum, the difficulty is how to phrase the question. Does one of you need to challenge the other?
Originally posted by Prote
Will you?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Prote
Personally, I don't believe or disbelieve either side, it is difficult to debate two issues which are so lacking in "fact". Having said this, I do find myself siding with shauny. Saint dismisses evolution
I did not dismiss evolution. I feel it is a hypothesis and should be treated as such. I believe some people with an agenda are to catagorize it as facts.
Originally posted by Prote
because it is lacking in fact but blindly sinks into the bible due to "personal experience". Well, about 15 years ago, I was chased down the street by an 8 ft orange (seriously).
I'd like to explore this topic in greater detail. Can you recount this event for me? The more information the better.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
''Saint dismisses evolution because it is lacking in fact but blindly sinks into the bible due to "personal experience".
I'm not sure if you did it on purpose, or perhaps did it subconciously, but you managed to cut the quote in half, thus giving you the opertunity to slate the response ''Saint dimisses evolution'', and then missing completly the cousin of that part quote ''because it is lacking in fact, but blindly sinks in to the bible due to personal experience''.
I just feel like you missed that completely, and in fact it was a pretty important part of what Prote had to say.
Originally posted by saint4God
I was turned away from evolution.
I spent time in way too many classes listening and discussing the empty subject.
It is a waste of time.
the sillyness that is "The Origin of Species".
Originally posted by saint4God
I did not dismiss evolution for any reason.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Prote
Personally, I don't believe or disbelieve either side, it is difficult to debate two issues which are so lacking in "fact". Having said this, I do find myself siding with shauny. Saint dismisses evolution
I did not dismiss evolution. I feel it is a hypothesis and should be treated as such. I believe some people with an agenda are to catagorize it as facts.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Prote
because it is lacking in fact but blindly sinks into the bible due to "personal experience". Well, about 15 years ago, I was chased down the street by an 8 ft orange (seriously).
I'd like to explore this topic in greater detail. Can you recount this event for me? The more information the better.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Prote
It was some personal experience but I do not believe 8 ft oranges exist.
Why not? According to the Terms & Conditions of ATS, it does state we are not to post things that are knowingly false. I'll hold us both accountable to this regulation.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Prote
it takes a lot of "proof" to sway someone away from those beliefs, whatever they are.
For some, perhaps. I don't think a blanket statement about people is appropriate here. THANKFULLY, we're talking about science here which requires proof regardless.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
I was turned away from evolution.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
I spent time in way too many classes listening and discussing the empty subject.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
It is a waste of time.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
the sillyness that is "The Origin of Species".
Originally posted by Prote
I knew I shouldn't have posted in here
Originally posted by Prote
You see, here is where I stumble in attempting to grasp your standpoint.
Originally posted by Prote
I accept it is possible.
Originally posted by Prote
The thing that niggles me is that you are defending your "faith" whilst at the same time requiring facts and evidence when your own standpoint is lacking in such.
Originally posted by Prote
I understand that you have your own personal proof but I think the hypocritical point shauny was trying to make is that you are wanting proof of evolution whilst not requiring the same thing of the things you do believe.
Originally posted by Prote
Why? It believe it was a hallucination.
Originally posted by Prote
I saw it, which doesn't mean it is real. However real it looked at the time, I realise that it was a manifestation of my own imagination. To others, this may be considered "personal proof" that there are gangs of monster oranges running about
Originally posted by Prote
but despite witnessing such an event, I am perfectly able to recognise it for what it is....delusion, imaginary, halucinogenic etc.
Originally posted by Prote
It was some personal experience but I do not believe 8 ft oranges exist.
Originally posted by Prote
Again, the reason I think you have less credibility than shauny.
Originally posted by Prote
You are picking up on things that aren't there and making a point or argument out of nonsense.
Originally posted by Prote
I haven't stated anything that I know to be false!
Originally posted by Prote
I'm not claiming the orange WAS an orange, I stated I saw it and I realise that it was not true. I fear you are clutching at straws trying to discredit a statement but your efforts are transparent.
Originally posted by Prote
Then we will have to just agree to disagree. ATS is full of statements, experiences, stories etc that goes well beyond many people's belief system and their reaction to such information is evident for all to see. Your statement hasn't changed my mind.
Originally posted by Prote
People, generally, require a lot of proof of a claim outside of their comfort zone before they accept it as possible, let alone embrace the idea. Those that don't are labelled as "gullible" or "naive".
Originally posted by Prote
However, if I were to believe in god and the bible as you do, it requires faith. If I am to have faith in this, then isn't it reasonable that I should also place faith in other things?
Originally posted by Prote
The key question here is a simple one and is not to be construed as antagonistic, only a curious question from an interested observer. I will ask it rhetorically so as not to direct it at you specifically so as not to offend...
Originally posted by Prote
You have personal proof of god. Well I have personal proof of giant oranges but I am prepared to relinquish my belief in this orange civilisation because it goes against my ingrained belief system and I recognised the experience for what it was. However, it seems that we have an equal amount of proof.
Originally posted by Prote
Evolution, God, Beings on Mars, Aliens, Ghosts, whatever. It's all in the same category as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by Prote
It's all possible but unprovable, therefore to have faith in one and not another is what I find confusing and I think shauny was also trying to clarify this but to no avail.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
When you dismiss Origin of Species by calling it 'silly', you're dismissing evolution.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
By calling evolution a hypothesis and not a theory, you're dismissing the theory of evolution.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm sure you'd be offended if someone called the Bible 'silly'.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
I've probably used similar terms to describe the Bible, I do dismiss Christianity and the Bible and God, I just can't stand the fact that you do the same to evolution and sit there and claim you don't.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
Opposable thumbs:
Take for example the 4-toed sloth and 3-toed sloth. The 4-toed sloth has an opposable thumb, yet the 3-toed sloth does not.
Did God create two similar animals of the same species, one with 3 toes and one with 4 and added an opposable thumb randomly for the 4-toed sloth?
Originally posted by shaunybaby
Or through evolution, did one species of sloth develope this extra attribute that the 3-toed sloth does not have?
Originally posted by shaunybaby
Obviously the 3-toed sloth has no need for an opposable thumb in it's environment. However, the 4-toed sloth, through evolution, has opposable thumbs, used as a survival mechanism perhaps to climb better, hang on better to trees as not to fall victim to predators etc.
Evolution takes a look at the world and tries to put reason to everything, as to why it's just so. God puts no meaning whatsoever in to anything, it's merely he made this, he made that, and in no way tries to explain why, or why animals are the way they are. It's merely they're like that because that's the way they were created.
Originally posted by saint4God
My opinion is the book is silly without facts, data, testing, etc. Provide these and my opinion will change. I haven't dismissed the book, I find it unsubstantiated. There is a difference between the word "unsubstantiated" and "dismissed".
No, I'm calling it a hypothesis. Calling something a hypothesis is not the same thing as dismissing it. I'm saying the grade of the idea is misrepresented, not that it needs to be dismissed. I have not dismissed "the theory of evolution", I'm stating it is mislabeled. Being mislabeled is different than being dismissed.
That's a question for Him. Not sure what this has to do with evolution.
Nobody knows.
The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories.
You're drawing conclusions, not presenting data, testing, predictability, etc. This conversation would go so much easier if the scientific method were used.
My opinion is the book is silly without facts, data, testing, etc
You're drawing conclusions, not presenting data, testing, predictability, etc.
I'm not sure why God is brought up in this thread.
Originally posted by Prote
saint, I fear you have missed my point. You retort against statements when you can think of something witty or deflective to say and at no point do you address the question. I am not meaning to attack you, I am simply trying to understand something, perhaps you can help me with it?
Originally posted by Prote
Rather than swing back and forth off topic, perhaps I can clarify something in attempting to understand your POV. If I understand you correctly, would you think the following statement is true?
Religion requires faith and not necessarily fact. Evolution requires facts because it's science, not religion, therefore without fact it also requires faith.
Originally posted by Prote
If you don't think this is true then I misunderstand your stance. If you do think it's true, then I guess my question is more along the lines of why the two has such differing rules.
Originally posted by Prote
Now, the reason this is relevant is because you see two completely seperate rules for the way you interpret data. God is relevant to me in this thread because 50% of the debate over the last several pages has come from someone who believes things that contradict the process they are demanding is followed before evidence is accepted. If you weren't religious, I probably wouldn't have the issue but the fact that you are, the above statements confuse the hell out of me.
Originally posted by Prote
If you want these things to accept evolution, why don't you need the same formula to process ALL the information you are exposed to? I am just asking you to help me understand why.
Originally posted by Prote
If you want me to admit that evolution requires faith, I'll admit it, mainly because I couldn't care less. I think it makes sense but that's different from believing it and I don't have enough facts for you to change your mind, I don't think there is "proof" for almost everything.
So now I gave you what you want. Now return the favour. I don't seek a retort for every sentence I have written, I only seek the answer to these questions...
1. Why is religion not subject to facts, data, testing?
Originally posted by Prote
2. If you want these things to accept evolution, why don't you need the same formula to process ALL the information you are exposed to?
Originally posted by saint4God
Great , I'm being discriminated because of my beliefs. I wanted to have a scientific discussion, believing it could be free of prejudice.
Originally posted by Prote
I'm not trying to discriminate, it's simply the root cause of my confusion.
Originally posted by Prote
I tried to pussy foot around with my words in an attempt not to offend but clearly, I was not choice enough with the way I attempted to understand your point of view. I did so because the debate was interesting, yet confusing.
Originally posted by Prote
I thank you for trying to answer the question. I'll have to accept that religion doesn't come under the same scrutiny because it's not a science...
Originally posted by Prote
for the time being. I think my question probably belongs in it's own thread, it came out here because I was enjoying the debate but this was niggling away. Maybe I'll go and lurk in the religion forums or create some furore there.
Originally posted by Prote
I don't suppose the proof you have is shareable is it?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Prote
I'm not trying to discriminate, it's simply the root cause of my confusion.
It's like saying someone cannot be a lawmaker because they're a parent.
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Prote
for the time being. I think my question probably belongs in it's own thread, it came out here because I was enjoying the debate but this was niggling away. Maybe I'll go and lurk in the religion forums or create some furore there.
Hopefully this inquiry clarified why they're held to different measures. The reason they are is because they're built upon foundations (though arguably science ultimately comes back to God) and employs a different set of tools in their functionality.
The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories.
Originally posted by jukyu
I believe what Darwin did was renounce his theory on his deathbed because it was being taken out of context as it is today and he felt it better to denounce it then allow it to be his work in the state it had become.
Personally I have no real problem with evolution. I am a firm Christian and will be to the day I die, and I don't see a conflict. Kind of simplistic but just think of natural laws as a recipe of sorts. They were created by God to create a certain outcome. Whether it happened in 6 seconds or 6 billion years what difference does it make to the Almighty who is immortal?