Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[stu]

Quote from Nebuchadnezzar:

Science is not meant to prove or disprove the existence of Supreme Being. It is rather amusing to see how you both invoke science to defend your own beliefs. Disbelief in God is a belief after all. Faith is the foundation of religious belief. Faith is the foundation of science as well. After all, one needs certain beliefs (such as the structure of atom, etc.) to practice science. Other certain beliefs are required to practice religion. Beliefs are not real. The things people used to believe 50 years ago, or 100 years ago makes us laugh now. Roger White is a philosopher and his analysis is that of beliefs held by scientists. It doesn't sound like he knows much about biology and as a philosopher he is above that and doesn't really need to.

Confusing faith and belief with science and knowledge is not valid.
Science is the antithesis of belief. Science is organized systematic rational skepticism towards proof without conclusion, and couldn't be further from belief.

Responses are not being made to invoke science. They are to those who, like yourself, would attempt to align science with belief, in the apparent hope of establishing some credibility for faith in a 'Supreme Being'.
Attempting to rank the words faith and belief along with the best methods there are of understanding the universe doesn't stack. It never has.
Scientists with beliefs is not a description of science.
A scientist with a belief or faith, must very quickly acquire some rational fact based understanding before they can start to enter into anything scientific.

 

[Trader666]

Nonsense. You assumed the motivations and timeframe of a "Creator" in your previous post to try to make your point. Now you're pretending your opinions are facts ("because it hasn't shown its existence"). You also ignore the reasons why ancient writings would as varied as they are.

Also, before you wrote: "The Christian god is no more falsifiable than Zeus or Thor." Was that supposed to prove something?

Quote from Betapeg:

I'm not worried about its motivations or time frame because it hasn't shown its existence. The stark differences and contradictions among religions is a manifestation of a belief in something that's not there and each culture's characteristic view on a "Creator", absent any scientific explanations of nature. As science progresses, religion retreats, as the need for religious explanations of reality grow more and more obsolete with the times.

 

[Trader666]

Doubling down on your STUpidity? Equally implausible based on what? Certainly NOT based on unfalsifiability. And yes, I've refuted it before. Can't stop yourself from lying, can you?

Quote from STUpid:

They are equally implausible. If it was nonsense, there should be no problem in refuting it however, you've not been able to.
It's very apparent you also seem to think false assertion is a form of argument.

 

[Trader666]

Here's more from Richard Dawkins. When pressed he's no loinger so sure of himself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w&feature=youtu.be

Quote from Betapeg:

Richard Dawkins said it best.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:
Doubling down on your STUpidity? Equally implausible based on what? Certainly NOT based on unfalsifiability. And yes, I've refuted it before. Can't stop yourself from lying, can you?

.....It's very apparent you also seem to think false assertion is a form of argument………...did you miss that?

I've already explained a number of times why there is an equal implausibility and why so particularly, based on unfalsifiability.

You've provided no argument yet which has stood in any reasonable way to support your assertions.
Stomping your feet and throwing infantile insults around is not really anything much to do with a refutation.

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from Trader666:

Nonsense. You assumed the motivations and timeframe of a "Creator" in your previous post to try to make your point.

Why an all-powerful Creator being needs religious people to convince others of its existence? Yea, that sounds really logical for such an entity...

Now you're pretending your opinions are facts ("because it hasn't shown its existence"). You also ignore the reasons why ancient writings would as varied as they are.

Pretending? Can you ffs get off me personally? Why don't you focus on the "shown its existence" part and explain how such a statement is false, instead of obsessing over me. Can you do that PLEASE?????

Also, before you wrote: "The Christian god is no more falsifiable than Zeus or Thor." Was that supposed to prove something?

Again, can you stop focusing on me, and focus on the argument? Yes, the Christian god is no more real than Zeus or Thor. Why is that not a true statement?

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from Trader666:

Here's more from Richard Dawkins. When pressed he's no loinger so sure of himself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w&feature=youtu.be

Riiiiiiight. Ben Stein is just mentioning gaps in our knowledge and of course, "God did it" (Intelligent Design) is his implied conclusion.

 

[jem]

Quote from Betapeg:

Actually, it's not implausible as it can be modeled mathematically using quantum mechanics. Can you say the same for a "Creator"?



Filling in our gaps of knowledge in regards to the universe with "God did it" is not an explanation at all. We might as well throw in the towel since we have the answer for everything. Fire all particle physicists for their heresy. We know why the universe is here. God did it! What do we need particle physicists for after that?

The multiverse is conjecture.
It is unfalsifiable
It can not be observed

It can be modeled using numbers the way the writers of star trek could put words together to create an alternate kirk and spock. It is just possible solutions... which Susskind decided, well they could exist therefore we can explain the fine tunings. it is science faith.

It is far more speculative than observing the fine tuning of this universe.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:

The multiverse is conjecture.
It is unfalsifiable
It can not be observed

It can be modeled using numbers the way the writers of star trek could put words together to create an alternate kirk and spock. It is just possible solutions... which Susskind decided, well they could exist therefore we can explain the fine tunings. it is science faith.

It is far more speculative than observing the fine tuning of this universe.

touche

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

The multiverse is conjecture.
It is unfalsifiable
It can not be observed

It can be modeled using numbers the way the writers of star trek could put words together to create an alternate kirk and spock. It is just possible solutions... which Susskind decided, well they could exist therefore we can explain the fine tunings. it is science faith.

It is far more speculative than observing the fine tuning of this universe.

You ask where the appearance of fine-tuning came from. You've decided the "God did it" argument suffices as an answer. I'm saying a theory supported by mathematics blows such arguments to smithereens, even if both are technically conjecture. So we have a multi-verse theory, supported by mathematics, and compatible with conventional theories of physics. And then we have the..."God did it" argument which would be laughed at in even the most average physics lecture halls.