Richard Dawkins & Smash of Dinosaur / Human Footprints

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

It's true, you never know who has an agenda or who cannot be trusted. But one person abusing another's trust does not make me question the entire system. If one shady mechanic tries to screw me over, it doesn't mean that the science behind auto mechanics is wrong or that all mechanics are scumbags. I see no reason why this type of thought should be applied to science.

There are shady people from all walks of life. People fake things, there are hoaxes. The problem is that the evidence for evolution and in other fields of science is so overwhelming, it would be impossible to fake or push an agenda with a few corrupt scientists. You would literally need thousands of scientists all involved in the conspiracy all working together to create fake evidence that does not conflict with each other and pretend to peer review it, while ensuring that no legitimate honest scientists ever peer review their work. It would be a conspiracy so big, that it would be impossible to not have the whistle blown.

Science doesn't get everything right 100% of the time on the first try, but it generally points us in the right direction.

Creationists certainly are not the only ones who argue via intellectual dishonesty and fallacies. However there are certain websites that are frequently quoted by them that have been debunked countless times. So when somebody posts an ICR link, there is reason to be skeptical because they are known fraudsters. It's not just because it's a creationist site, it's because it's a site that is KNOWN for lies. It's not like science gets all its information from hoaxers. When hoaxes get exposed, it is usually the science that does it, and then it gets removed from the theory or hypothesis. No system that relies on man is 100% perfect. There will always be flaws and errors, but those errors and flaws get corrected over time as more information is understood.

a reply to: Barcs

I agree. I don't question science as a system based off of one or a very few intellectually dishonest individuals....it'd be foolish to do so. However, that doesn't mean it isn't difficult(which I'll get to in a moment).

My main point is that because there ARE those few intellectually dishonest individuals, however few and far between they may be, it makes any scientific branch, theory, or conclusion, which is not necessarily testable by Joe Schmoe, that much more difficult to believe.

Just as an example, say Dr. Bill Babadook comes forward and announces he has found a sequence of genomes which produce homosexuality... Well...How do I know if Dr. Babadook is telling the truth or not? I don't have a lab readily available to verify his findings....so what do I do? Most ordinary people would simply take his word for it and that's a slippery slope to tread...

I wish I was capable of testing every theory and every conclusion for myself, but I just don't have those kinds of resources available.So ultimately I'm left TRUSTING that Dr. Babadook is honest and loyal to his work.

Now, granted, the more scientists that back up Dr. Babadook, the more credible he becomes...however, I am not easily persuaded. Having been personally mislead and deceived by everyone ranging from family and friends to a guy i met 2 seconds ago on the street, I find it just as difficult to believe in the honesty and integrity of mankind in general as I do a flaming chariot coming down from "the heavens".

A2D

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: jon1
a reply to: SuperFrog

So what you are saying is that you have never been to where these things happen, never done any real research won't believe what others say yet You deny that there is any chance that maybe there is a god...
By the way, Jesus would not heal if he was being put to the test..That fact is in the bible..

Healing is just part of a spirit filled christians life...No photo's, no videos and no glory to us....

Are you implying that it is my fault for never being there???

Firstly, outside of bible we don't have single piece of evidence Jesus ever existed, not to mention his healing capability...

Just reminder - extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, which you failed to present here...

Of course it's your fault for not being there...Let me ask you something....this evidence that i have failed to show you.

would a person's first hand account be ok ?
Would reports written by Doctors be ok ?
Would a photograph be ok ?
Would a film be ok ?
Only by being there and seeing these things happen for yourself will you ever believe, but a little warning here.. Don't ever tell anyone because they will never believe you...

We are dealing with the supernatural here and you expect the proof to just fall in your lap whilst sat in front of a computer screen....Won't happen my friend...
Millions of people experience what i have but they have had to want God in their lives, then go and find him...

Why does God hide these things from the ordinary people, because he wants you to love him as a father and not for what he can do for or with you...That comes later depending on how much faith you have..

SO, in a nut shell, you have to get out there and search for what you are looking for but i suspect that it would be to much trouble.....That chair that you are sat on is far to comfy....

Sorry to be harsh but just letting you know..

This is somewhat my view of your God, morality and rest of said...



As for miracles, just check previous page with Tim Minchin song, he explained it very well...

a reply to: SuperFrog

OK superfrog, you win.

I bet i'm not the first christian that has given up on you...
You ask us questions and we advise you on the way forward but like i say, that chair is so comfy...

Did you ever google healing miracles..I doubt it because you may read things that don't fit in with your agenda which is to disprove God at all costs...

Such a shame because i bet you are a nice guy when not having fun with christians...
Anyway, you have a good life and no doubt i will see you again on here.. Lets hope it's on a subject that we both agree on though..
cheers..

By the way i watched the video that you recommended but this is by a person that does not know God.
If he did he would know the answers to all of his own questions...
In a nutshell, it is man who does these evil things and not God..but i explained this earlier...

originally posted by: jon1
a reply to: SuperFrog

OK superfrog, you win.

I bet i'm not the first christian that has given up on you...
You ask us questions and we advise you on the way forward but like i say, that chair is so comfy...

Did you ever google healing miracles..I doubt it because you may read things that don't fit in with your agenda which is to disprove God at all costs...

Of course I did, and found youtube video from man from title of this topic himself presenting good example how supposed 'miracle' work.



BTW, this is not a race - just exchange / dialogue.

So, let me ask you question - in previous post I posted Sam Harris' video that starts with pure statistic - 9 million of children younger then 5 dies every year. I am sure for many of them, their parents pray and are religious, so how do you explain that they were unable to heal?!

Please, watch Dawkins' video and compare that with what you claim to be miracles. I know it does not fit your biased view of religion, but please, give it a try...

originally posted by: jon1
Such a shame because i bet you are a nice guy when not having fun with christians...
Anyway, you have a good life and no doubt i will see you again on here.. Lets hope it's on a subject that we both agree on though..
cheers..

By the way i watched the video that you recommended but this is by a person that does not know God.
If he did he would know the answers to all of his own questions...
In a nutshell, it is man who does these evil things and not God..but i explained this earlier...

How does him believing or disbelieving in God changes what statistical numbers show us?!

Let me ask you one more question - when you sick, do you go to doctor or you just pray?!

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
My main point is that because there ARE those few intellectually dishonest individuals, however few and far between they may be, it makes any scientific branch, theory, or conclusion, which is not necessarily testable by Joe Schmoe, that much more difficult to believe.

So what? What are a handful of dishonest people, when you have thousands of legitimate ones? And again, this ignores peer review, where Joe Schmoe's conclusions can be reviewed and tested by others. You do know that this is a REQUIREMENT for any scientific research paper to be published, right? It's a silly standard that you are holding science to, not even close to religious faith.

Well...How do I know if Dr. Babadook is telling the truth or not? I don't have a lab readily available to verify his findings....so what do I do? Most ordinary people would simply take his word for it and that's a slippery slope to tread...

Simple. You check to see if his work has been peer reviewed yet. This is a requirement for published research papers, so if you are reading it, it has very likely already happened.

Now, granted, the more scientists that back up Dr. Babadook, the more credible he becomes...however, I am not easily persuaded.

Exactly. Again, peer review answers all your concerns. There is no peer review for faith. There is blind guesswork and trust in ancient man.

a reply to: Barcs

Not exactly.

People of faith will tell you they have had their faith tested and proven true. In a way since all these people come to the same conclusion...that is the same degree of validation as scientific peer review.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs

Not exactly.

People of faith will tell you they have had their faith tested and proven true. In a way since all these people come to the same conclusion...that is the same degree of validation as scientific peer review.

No it's not. Scientific peer review requires tangible verifiable results that anybody who reviews can check for themselves. The results must be verifiable and repeatable. They don't just blindly take their word for it. With your example, there is nothing to verify. HUGE difference. Joe blow says he saw god. How do we verify he is not lying? If this is testable and repeatable then I should be able to do what he did and see god as well.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs

Not exactly.

People of faith will tell you they have had their faith tested and proven true. In a way since all these people come to the same conclusion...that is the same degree of validation as scientific peer review.

Is that like kids believing that Santa Claus exist, and appart from you - they have evidence - gifts that Santa placed under the Christmas tree.

Only difference between people of faith and those kids is that kids will grow up and learn that santa really does not exist... some much earlier...

Sad, but true...

originally posted by: Barcs


No it's not. Scientific peer review requires tangible verifiable results that anybody who reviews can check for themselves. The results must be verifiable and repeatable. They don't just blindly take their word for it. With your example, there is nothing to verify. HUGE difference. Joe blow says he saw god. How do we verify he is not lying? If this is testable and repeatable then I should be able to do what he did and see god as well.

So you say scientific peer review requires tangible verifiable results...but yet you quoted the source earlier which had a peer reviewed article from Science magazine concerning the sun's corona...which was only a theoretical explanation of how the corona COULD PERHAPS become hotter than the surface...how is that verifiable? How is that tangible? It's not...it's speculative at best...and definitely not verifiable...

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree

originally posted by: Barcs


No it's not. Scientific peer review requires tangible verifiable results that anybody who reviews can check for themselves. The results must be verifiable and repeatable. They don't just blindly take their word for it. With your example, there is nothing to verify. HUGE difference. Joe blow says he saw god. How do we verify he is not lying? If this is testable and repeatable then I should be able to do what he did and see god as well.

So you say scientific peer review requires tangible verifiable results...but yet you quoted the source earlier which had a peer reviewed article from Science magazine concerning the sun's corona...which was only a theoretical explanation of how the corona COULD PERHAPS become hotter than the surface...how is that verifiable? How is that tangible? It's not...it's speculative at best...and definitely not verifiable...

A2D

Um, can't you just respond to my posts in that thread that address this very point instead of bringing it over to this thread for no reason. It is not COULD PERHAPS. That is laughably absurd. They have a model. Now they have found evidence of this model. If you don't understand it, don't comment.

a reply to: Barcs

Evidence and proof are two distinct entities. Evidence is convincing...Proof is undeniable. Also, I didn't mention it "for no reason"...I mentioned it because it is relevant to the topic at hand.. You said science is "tangible and testable" and I gave you an example of something YOU-YOURSELF quoted...from a science article...that YOU-YOURSELF did not test...You take for granted that the author and his peers are being intellectual honest...Yet previously you said that you do test things for yourself.

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I never claimed to have tested it myself or that all science is 100% proven. I claimed that the observations are real and the paper has been peer reviewed by other scientists. It is based on evidence, certainly not entirely theoretical. Just because it's not 100% proven, doesn't mean there is not verifiable evidence. You seem to be insinuating that they are all making it up or lying (or might be). Like I said, there is no need to fight science every step of the way. The picture gets clearer, the more evidence we find. This part will hopefully lead the scientists to research more and get more pieces of the puzzle. Again, it's not just blind faith. Anybody can become a scientist and challenge these findings by running their own observations.

a reply to: Barcs

So you're acknowledging the fact that you did not test the conclusions yourself and simply take their word on good faith(not blind faith as so many people like to say, as such a thing is ludicrous, it's evidenced faith - personally or empirically evidenced...)?

A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

I did not test them myself, but other people have. Maybe you missed the whole expert peer review thing I explained to you? This conversation is devolving into semantics and silliness. If you have reason to disagree with their findings, let's hear it. You just denied it by default simply because you don't trust all scientists, which is backtracking from your original argument that the evidence was completely theoretical.

When there are literally tens of thousands of scientists out there doing legitimate work, why deny things by default when it is such a low percentage of fraudsters? That is essentially paranoia, like being afraid to fly post 9/11 or going to an auto repair shop instantly distrusting them just because one guy screwed you over in the past. It seems you let the bad apples spoil the bunch here.

Is it based on faith that your PC works or that you can get on the internet?

Personal experiences can't be used as evidence. The reason is because there is no way of determining what actually happened to the individual.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Dinosaurs were not reptiles, no.

a reply to: Learningman

Really?

What were they then?

Allow me to guess, birds?