to the atheists on the board

So you believe that magicians REALLY DO cut women in half???

You saw it with your own eyes right? :D

This clearly points out the problem with your flawed thinking processes.


peace

axeman

Quote from ARogueTrader:

So you wouldn't believe it if you saw it for yourself.

Such is the nature of a skeptical mind.
More...
 
So you would test God, and expect Him to meet your tests just because you lacked proof of His existence?

How funny!

You can form a concept of God who would have created man, yet expect Him to prove Himself to man through their methods and criteria of proof.

Imagine the Creator of the Universe needing to jump through your hoops to prove Himself to you.

The ego.......the ego......




Quote from Cutten:

You couldn't be sure. However, you would assess the evidence like you would any other evidence.

For example, if a bearded man came up to me and introduced himself as Jesus Christ, I would be highly sceptical. If I had a dream involving god, I would assume it was about as true as my dreams involving Jennifer Lopez's ass.

However, if in the dream the god told me that a bearded man would introduce himself as Jesus tomorrow, and then perform a miracle, and that indeed happened the next day, then the evidence would become much stronger. I could still be hallucinating, but if I told other people and they witnessed it too, then this would eliminate that possibility. If this Jesus then went round the world doing the same thing, the evidence would be extremely strong. If a bunch of evolutionary atheist scientists examined these miracles and found them to be true, and all converted to Christianity, then it would be very strong evidence indeed. If I said "Ok, if you can do miracles, how about parting the English Channel?" and he did it, it would be pretty hard to refute.
More...
 
And here ART runs and hides behind his bullshit unfalsifiable
meaningless fabricated position :D

Just for the record "The ego...the ego" does not constitute
a rational rebuttal :D


Do you even know for a FACT that god wishes to explicitly
try soooo hard to ***HIDE*** from science?

Oh great personal knower of god... please let us in on this
little secret. Why does this all powerful being seem to
**FEAR*** us tiny little itty bitty scientists??!?! LMAO :D
He does such a damn good job of making sure he is NEVER discovered :D

This next bullshit excuse should be a doozy :D

peace

axeman



Quote from ARogueTrader:

So you would test God, and expect Him to meet your tests just because you lacked proof of His existence?

How funny!

You can form a concept of God who would have created man, yet expect Him to prove Himself to man through their methods and criteria of proof.

Imagine the Creator of the Universe needing to jump through your hoops to prove Himself to you.

The ego.......the ego......
More...
 
>You can form a concept of God who would have created man,
>yet expect Him to prove Himself to man through their
>methods and criteria of proof.

>Imagine the Creator of the Universe needing to jump
>through your hoops to prove Himself to you.

>The ego.......the ego......

The Creator that I would respect would wish for me use the powers of reason that he gave me to determine who was real and who was false. Since he created man he would obviously know that he would need to use methods and criteria accessable to man. He would not call this ego, he would call it uncommon sense. He would not be put off...he would be proud.

Or as Shoe might say..."this is exactly what one would expect of a creator". :-)

JB
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Thank you. (I realize that Gould was a staunch evolutionist.) Maybe I've found someone who will talk math and science with me and not just tell me to go read the Encyclopedia Britannica because he can't remember any of it...

I seriously would like to find someone who can defend punctuated equilibra. That is really where I was hoping this thread would go, but I couldn't get any takers.

As you can tell, I feel that I would have to commit intellectual suicide to accept NeoDarwinistic gradualism and I definitely think the future of biology lies with Gould and his followers.

So far I have not been able to find the answers to the following questions:

1. If the favorable mutation rate is so astronomically low (less than 1 in 10,000), why Does Gould feel this would this assist in large scale change over even shorter time periods?
2. Wouldn't a small, isolated population provide for even less overall mutations, i.e. resulting in less chance for mutational change?
3. Wouldn't the correct sequencing of favorable mutations be even more critical in a small population?

I am much more interested in the math and science of it. I really don't want to hear stratigraphic arguments as much (since they could argue for creationism or punc. equ.).
More...

Excellent questions.

1) Can't help you on#1, as that require his input, and he is gone sadly.

2 & 3) Intuitively, yes. But I don't know. I'll consult an evolutionary scientist with a keen understanding of genetics, statistics and probabilty, and get back to you.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

So you would test God, and expect Him to meet your tests just because you lacked proof of His existence?

How funny!

You can form a concept of God who would have created man, yet expect Him to prove Himself to man through their methods and criteria of proof.

Imagine the Creator of the Universe needing to jump through your hoops to prove Himself to you.

The ego.......the ego......
More...

So any time a bearded man walks up to you claiming to be Jesus, you unquestioningly accept it?

If so, there's this bridge I'd like to sell you...
 
Quote from slammajamma:

Excellent questions.

1) Can't help you on#1, as that require his input, and he is gone sadly.

2 & 3) Intuitively, yes. But I don't know. I'll consult an evolutionary scientist with a keen understanding of genetics, statistics and probabilty, and get back to you.
More...

Thx.

Yeah, I knew he passed away - I remember reading about it. I had actually gone back and changed my post to past tense...

I respect him for his intellectual courage. I always admire the scientist that challenges the slowly toppling elite...
 
Once again you confuse AGNIOSCTISM and ATHEISM.
ATHEISM is not based on ANYTHING than the BELIEF OF FREE WILL. AGNIOSCTISM is the BELIEF that there MAY BE A SUPERIOR CONSCIOUSNESS or INTELLIGENCE that DESIGNED or to be more explicit FINE TUNED the CONTANTS OF UNIVERSE so that galaxies, stars and accessorily life can appear. Instead of talking in general there is today the so called fine structure constant in Universe which is equal roughly to 1/137 (137 is coïncidently the Golden angle but Cosmologist don't refer to it by this name only by the "alpha constant" name) it is known that if this constant was different by only a slight billionth stars couldn't even exist SO the hypothesis that "HE" whatever or whoever "HE" is has FINE TUNED this constant because if "HE" didn't do so by his WILLINGNESS the Universe wouldn't just exist as it exists today: it would be emptiness. That you call "HE" God or Nature doesn't change the Essence of "HE" or the existence of a possible VOLONTARY DESIGN. The belief in a possible existence of a Designer is indeed an AGNOSTIC BELIEF which is founded on DETERMINISM in Scientific laws and more precisely the existence of apparently FINE TUNED CONSTANTS. There is another BELIEF which is that the existence of the FINE TUNED CONSTANTS by some SUPERIOR BEING or THING or CONCIOUSNESS may be an appearance if the Universe has been selected among many other POSSIBLE RANDOM UNIVERSES: this is called the "Multiverse" hypothesis which is indeed an ATHEIST hypothesis. But this "Multiverse" hypothesis is very recent and not yet widespread among the scientific community so at the moment of History in Science, the balance is more in favor of a DESIGNER if you don't like the term GOD but this DESIGNER has FINE TUNED the CONSTANTS OF UNIVERSE than in favor of a creation of our current Universe by several RANDOM ATTEMPTS so that our universe is just a happy ACCIDENT - but let's even suppose then someone may logically ask but who/what throw the dice then :D. As you can see the debate can be reduced as in Stock Market around the conflict between Determinism and Randomness. This problematic of FINE TUNED Constants of Universe and God can be illustrated by Richard Feynman's own words :

“[1/137] is one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to use with no understanding by man. <font color=red>You might say the ‘hand of <b>God</b>’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.</font>’'

Quote from axeman:

Learn to read.

I said: "SCIENCE IS A PROCESS".

A process is NOT capable of possessing a belief.

A *SCIENTIST*, as in a HUMAN *can* posses a belief.

If I handed you the PROCESS for cooking chocolate chip
cookies, would you claim the PROCESS can possess a
belief for something? Absurd.

I am well aware of the necessity for hypothesis in science.
Your preaching to the choir.


Now I ask you... do scientists who apply the scientific method
to the question of god, in general, BELIEVE in god????
Yes or No. We already know the National Academy of Scientists
answer 93% NO for this question.

If you answer no, then you agree they are being atheistic.
People who follow the scientific method are atheistic by
definition UNTIL they prove the existence of god, which has
never happened.

peace

axeman
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top