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.

 

evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

page: 34
6
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I have been following this thread for a while, just like the other christianity thread where these two are neck deep in it.

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 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). It was some personal experience but I do not believe 8 ft oranges exist.

In addition, I do not think any religion holds much water at all, so I am prepared to admit my bias. 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, it takes a lot of "proof" to sway someone away from those beliefs, whatever they are.

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? Will you?




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   


What's wrong with a hypothesis? They need to be pursued. Likewise though, a hypothesis is not fact.


No problems with a hypothesis. Just a problem with you thinking evolution is one, as it is not.



Awesome, I will do my best to facilitate that process through prayer and any other means you're open to.


You can try, as you know I was brought up around the church scene. It did nothing for me back then and still doesn't appeal. Although nothing a quick prayer can't solve, right?



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.


What utter rubbish. ''God proven = Yes''. Sorry, but personal proof just doesn't cut it. It doesn't matter if it's God or science, personal proof is not proof of God's existence.



They are a very strong voice when they teach 1,600 people per year and publish articles read by additional thousands.


And articles aren't published on behalf of creationism telling people that evolution is bull? One distinct difference between evolution, is that in an evolution article, a professional one, you'll rarely if ever see them slate creation or God. You will however see in many creationist articles, the slating and attack of evolution.

You might want to take a little visit to dr.dino's dinoadventurefunland park thing, I'm pretty sure they have a whole host of visitors, kids taken there by their parents to learn some made-up false history of dinosaurs living with man. ''Mummy, mummy, what's that?''.. ''Why, that's a group of men living in harmony with a t-rex, t-rex's were vegetarians and wouldn't hurt those nice men''. Don't preach what you're own religion practices.



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.


I never said scientists said that. And I also stated that I didn't say 'scientists' before. You really do ignore a lot of what I have to say. Is that on purpose or by accident? However, it's not the first example i've experienced of a person thinking that we evolved from the apes that we see today. Basically many people have misconceptions of evolution.



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.


I gave you factual data (fossils) and evolution is then the explanation of those factual pieces of data. That's what makes a theory by definition on that site. Evolution is the explanation of factual pieces of evidence. Just as you might use an apple falling from a tree as the factual data, and the theory of gravity is the explanation.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

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.


Glad to be considered a point of interest.


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 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 Prote
In addition, I do not think any religion holds much water at all, so I am prepared to admit my bias.


Always a plus to be able to make such admittance.


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,


I disagree. What I believe is not convenient at all and has brought me to overcome some challenges that were neither easy nor desired.


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 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?


No. I have no need.


Originally posted by Prote
Will you?


I do not have the best grammar and would not be pleased with my own composition minus the ability to edit. Secondly, I am not able to schedule a time to do so. I use ATS when I have a moment without set dates or times. Asking another commitment would be excess and am already considering relieving some other voluntary things to get more time. Thirdly, I do like to research things. Links, information and such to take them under consideration. I doubt anyone wants to sit there and wait for me to take a half-hour or more to read through whatever article is being referenced. Getting into a "rapid fire" argument does not look progressive nor productive. I've read transcripts of them and haven't found them to be of great value. I don't want a decision of "who's right" to be based on "who's the best talker". Hopefully that clarifies why these boards are more beneficial than bickering.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

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.


I like how a very important part of what Prote was saying was by accident/purposely missed by saint, as he cut them up in to two seperate quotes, basically missing the entire point. Which was:

''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.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

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.


Despite whatever the "because" reason is, I did not dismiss evolution for any reason. This truncation was intentional as in the very beginning it is in error.

Furthermore, since we're clarifying the WHOLE statement now whether on topic or not, I do not "blindly" sink "into the bible due to 'personal experience". This is not relevant to the discussion but if we really must get get into off-track details, will do.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

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".


^^ Past ^^



Originally posted by saint4God
I did not dismiss evolution for any reason.


^^ Present ^^

I'm not sure what you believe constitutes to 'dismissing' evolution, but I think 'empty subject' 'waste of time' and 'the sillyness that is the origin of species' would pretty much some up the concept of dismissing.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I knew I shouldn't have posted in here



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.


You see, here is where I stumble in attempting to grasp your standpoint. As I mentioned, I don't necessarily believe in evolution and I don't care what bucket it is placed i.e. theoretical, hypothesis, whatever. I accept it is possible.

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. 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 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.


Why? It believe it was a hallucination. 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 but despite witnessing such an event, I am perfectly able to recognise it for what it is....delusion, imaginary, halucinogenic etc.



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.

Again, the reason I think you have less credibility than shauny. You are picking up on things that aren't there and making a point or argument out of nonsense. I haven't stated anything that I know to be false! 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 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.


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. 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".

In summary, I have read many things, evolution and the bible being two of them. I find the bible is completely bizarre and evolution questionable. For me, neither works although evolution makes more sense (to me). I accept that both are possible.

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?

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...

Why does man believe without question one thing which cannot be proved and yet demand proof for another?

Why would a person believe in all that the bible stands for but won't accept evolution in the same way? or beings on venus? or anything?

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.

Evolution, God, Beings on Mars, Aliens, Ghosts, whatever. It's all in the same category as far as I'm concerned. 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.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
I was turned away from evolution.


Turned away from, yes. Dismissed, no. Notice the phrase "I was turned away" not "I dismissed" or "I turned away".


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I spent time in way too many classes listening and discussing the empty subject.


It is empty. As I've said, it is an idea without data, tests, predictability, etc. Fill it!


Originally posted by shaunybaby
It is a waste of time.


It is a waste of time having these discussion, I want facts.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
the sillyness that is "The Origin of Species".


The book is silly. It does not include data, tests, predictability, etc like other science textbooks. Provide these to forward the cause of evolution from hypothesis to theory.

I have my assessments of evolution thus far, but I have not dismissed it. It's not "off the table". I haven't "sent it packing". I haven't said it was an impossibility. Shall I continue to re-phrase?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prote
I knew I shouldn't have posted in here


The past is past.


Originally posted by Prote
You see, here is where I stumble in attempting to grasp your standpoint.


See response to shauny.


Originally posted by Prote
I accept it is possible.


Me too.


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.


My faith is not the topic of this thread. Nor is my faith a science. Evolution claims to be a science.


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.


I did require proof of the things I believe. And, I got it. And, am working to help those who want to establish their proof as well.


Originally posted by Prote
Why? It believe it was a hallucination.


Okay, so it was a 1 time occurance, do I understand correctly? Please describe in context the conditions by which this hallucination exists.


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


Not to me.


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.


Please see quesetion above. I don't like to go into debate as to what truth (it should be more obvious than this) is when it's not the topic of discussion, but will go there if you wish.


Originally posted by Prote
It was some personal experience but I do not believe 8 ft oranges exist.


Never did I claim to have hallucination and therefore believe something.


Originally posted by Prote
Again, the reason I think you have less credibility than shauny.


I don't mean this to sound harsh, but I'm not vying for credibility. I'm not trying to "win friends and influence people". My responsibility is to the truth, not an opinion poll.


Originally posted by Prote
You are picking up on things that aren't there and making a point or argument out of nonsense.


Like discussing the Bible on an evolution thread? Hmm....


Originally posted by Prote
I haven't stated anything that I know to be false!


Good, it makes two of us.


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.


I have no motivation nor desire to discredit your statement. We both must be accountable to the Terms and Conditions. Not sure why that's an issue.


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.


I'm not here to change your 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".


I agree a lot of people require proof, not saying all do. I don't care for labels unless a person themselves choose it to represent a grouping of thoughts. Calling an orange an apple doesn't make it an apple.


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?


You certainly have that right. I appreciate your acknowledgement that you'd need faith in both cases.


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...


By rhetorically, I presume you mean not expecting an answer or for ponderance. In that case, I will honor the instrument of rhetoric as intended and leave it alone.


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.


Negative friend. You've given 1 instance. I am not talking about a single isolated incident nor a hallucination. You do not know the proof I have so it would be unwise to claim you know about it. You do not.


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.


I'm sure.


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.


I will drop the issue entirely if you and shauny state it is a faith-based hypothesis with no data, testing, formulae and predictability as the scientific method employs to determine a valid theory.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
When you dismiss Origin of Species by calling it 'silly', you're dismissing evolution. By calling evolution a hypothesis and not a theory, you're dismissing the theory of evolution.

I'm sure you'd be offended if someone called the Bible 'silly'. 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.

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?

Or through evolution, did one species of sloth develope this extra attribute that the 3-toed sloth does not have? 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.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
When you dismiss Origin of Species by calling it 'silly', you're dismissing evolution.


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".
www.m-w.com...


Originally posted by shaunybaby
By calling evolution a hypothesis and not a theory, you're dismissing the theory of evolution.


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.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm sure you'd be offended if someone called the Bible 'silly'.


No, I'd seen the Bible as silly myself at one point in my life.


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.


I do not.


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?


That's a question for Him. Not sure what this has to do with evolution.


Originally posted by shaunybaby
Or through evolution, did one species of sloth develope this extra attribute that the 3-toed sloth does not have?


Nobody knows.


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.


You're drawing conclusions, not presenting data, testing, predictability, etc. This conversation would go so much easier if the scientific method were used. I'm not sure why God is brought up in this thread. I am glad to hear though that He's on people's minds though.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

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".


You've dismissed it on the grounds that you don't think it shows facts, data or testing. Unsubstantiated is a technicality. Stop using other words to describe something that you've 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.


Another technicality. Digging yourself in to one huge hole here saint. I thought you were a little more mature than this, especialy mature enough to admit something. Then again humans learn the art of lying pretty much when they learn the art of speach and language.



That's a question for Him. Not sure what this has to do with evolution.


Maybe it wasn't clear. Opposable thumbs are a sign of evolution in humans and other mammals.



Nobody knows.


And evolution attempts to understand and explain that. The fact and data is the opposable thumb, the explanation is evolution, hence the theory of evolution. You're somewhat confused by this and still insist on evolution being called a hypothesis.


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.


If you say evolution is not testable, then by definition it cannot be a hypothesis. One grade of a hypothesis is that you can test it. You're the one who's always going on about scientific method, I thought you would have known that little detail.



You're drawing conclusions, not presenting data, testing, predictability, etc. This conversation would go so much easier if the scientific method were used.


This conversation would go much easier if you weren't so arrogant and one could have a half decent conversation without every response and come back being an argumentative disagreement.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by shaunybaby]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
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?

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.

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.

The reason for me this is relevant is because you post statements like...


My opinion is the book is silly without facts, data, testing, etc


and


You're drawing conclusions, not presenting data, testing, predictability, etc.


So in answer to this...


I'm not sure why God is brought up in this thread.

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. 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.

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?
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?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

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?


I shall do my best.


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.


I agree with this statement.


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.


By definition. I don't get to write those rules. Science defined itself as this by scientists. Belief in God was defined by God. I don't get any authority over changing definitions nor would I want to. They work in the context they were made.



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.


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
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.


I DID say that if I had the personal experience of evolving I would believe, yes? Now, science says it is invalid because I cannot demonstrate facts, data, testing, and predictability. Science throws out the argument, not me.


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?


Because it's not a science (back to definitions). Ask the scientist who came up with the root definition of science why. I do believe though that facts can be obtained and certainly things can be tested.


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?


In fact I did require proof of God before believing and I have obtained it. Not sure why this point gets repeatedly overlooked. I've not forsaken my previous skepticims of testing, obtaining facts, verifying, validating, etc.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by saint4God]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

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.

I'm not trying to discriminate, it's simply the root cause of my confusion. 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.

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...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.

I don't suppose the proof you have is shareable is it?



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

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. What does being a parent have to do with lawmaking? They're two different roles entirely. S'all good, I didn't mean you were trying to be malicious, just pointing out what it looks like.


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.


Feel free to be candid, I'm not offended. We don't know each other personally so I'm not sure why someone would get personally offended.


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...


This does not mean do not examine relgion as well. By all means do so! But, religion is not based upon data, testing and things as science claims to be.


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.


Originally posted by Prote
I don't suppose the proof you have is shareable is it?


Although I can share my experience, I don't believe someone else would constitute it as proof. I can however help someone obtain their own validation (because God is personal) if they're interested. If you're seriously considering such, feel free to U2U for details, I'll do my best to help.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

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.


No it isn't, but whatever.


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.


I understand your position better but I have gained no clarification why religion requires no facts but other things do. I guess it's just that I find it difficult to relate to because if I wanted stonewall proof of everything, I would believe very little. Similarly, if I was happy to take things on faith, then I would probably be inclined to take lots of other things on faith and not demand proof. The motives behind wanting proof whilst not wanting proof for other things become the interest for me. But I understand that you have the proof that you need.

I'll let the thread get back on topic, I'll probably go and create a furore in the religion forum.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
saint you missed this:



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've said before that evolution is not testable, yet by definition a hypothesis needs to be testable.

The opposable thumb is the factual data, the explanation of that factual data is evolution, that is why evolution is a theory, as it explans such data as that.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Cat got your tongue saint?

Would you like me to reiterate any of that for you..



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

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?


Well said!


People argue evolution when it doesn't even matter. Evolution is from the root word evolve. Evolving happens everyday in nature. Take a look at a giraffe. The neck grew over thousands of years to reach higher branches. It evolved. Now when looking at a number of these cases, it could be determined as evolution.




top topics



 
6
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join