Scientific Atheism is dishonest

[miknik5]

Scientific atheism asserts that reason and observation are sufficient grounds to disprove the existence of God.

But since the existence of God cannot be disproven by reason or science this must be a dishonest position.

Maybe an incomplete position?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe an incomplete position?

The OP is merely a strawman argument.

 

[dcalling]

From what I can tell from a quick google search it was an incomplete gene duplication.

ASSUMED incomplete gene duplication. How do you know this actually happened WITHOUT be able to reproduce it or reproduce the necessary steps of it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ASSUMED incomplete gene duplication. How do you know this actually happened WITHOUT be able to reproduce it or reproduce the necessary steps of it?

You really need to quit using the word "assumed".

 

[Dave Ellis]

ASSUMED incomplete gene duplication. How do you know this actually happened WITHOUT be able to reproduce it or reproduce the necessary steps of it?

You raised this argument for the first time on June 6 on post #673. This is the three month anniversary of you pointlessly arguing about this gene.

Will you please tell me what your point is? Even if you were right, I have no idea why you think this matters?

 

[dcalling]

You really need to quit using the word "assumed".

It is assumed. You yourself said it is impossible to reproduce (I disagree but that is not the point). If you can't reproduce it, or show a possible path way (or even part of a path way where such chemical/physical reactions could happen), how is it NOT assumed?

 

[dcalling]

You raised this argument for the first time on June 6 on post #673. This is the three month anniversary of you pointlessly arguing about this gene.

Will you please tell me what your point is? Even if you were right, I have no idea why you think this matters?

My point is, are we going to make hypothesis theories? So you saw something that seems like happened (i.e. the 2 genes are a like), and should you take for granted that one actually mutated out of the other?

This grow out of the post where you claimed that you can definitely (or some other word) prove Bible is wrong, and latter express the view the evolution is true, which all seems to take assumed information as granted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is assumed. You yourself said it is impossible to reproduce (I disagree but that is not the point). If you can't reproduce it, or show a possible path way (or even part of a path way where such chemical/physical reactions could happen), how is it NOT assumed?

If you want to claim that it is assumed the burden of proof is upon you. I doubt if you can show that there was any such assumption.

Perhaps you should not use words that you do not understand the meaning of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point is, are we going to make hypothesis theories? So you saw something that seems like happened (i.e. the 2 genes are a like), and should you take for granted that one actually mutated out of the other?

This grow out of the post where you claimed that you can definitely (or some other word) prove Bible is wrong, and latter express the view the evolution is true, which all seems to take assumed information as granted.

Wrong on both counts. It is easy to show that the Bible is wrong in all sorts of ways. No one takes anything for granted on the science side. Sadly you are not willing to learn. At this point all we an do is to point out your errrors to you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My point is, are we going to make hypothesis theories? So you saw something that seems like happened (i.e. the 2 genes are a like), and should you take for granted that one actually mutated out of the other?

This grow out of the post where you claimed that you can definitely (or some other word) prove Bible is wrong, and latter express the view the evolution is true, which all seems to take assumed information as granted.

We know how incomplete gene duplication happens, and we have every reason to believe that's what happened.

Even if we wound up being wrong though, what are you trying to prove? We're mistaken about HYDIN2, therefore god?

Please explain where you're trying to go with this.

 

[dcalling]

If you want to claim that it is assumed the burden of proof is upon you. I doubt if you can show that there was any such assumption.

Perhaps you should not use words that you do not understand the meaning of.

Nope, if you want to claim it is not assumed but already have conclusive evidence, the burden is upon you to provide that evidence, and it has to be repeatable and verifiable. Your logic is totally backward.

 

[dcalling]

We know how incomplete gene duplication happens, and we have every reason to believe that's what happened.

Even if we wound up being wrong though, what are you trying to prove? We're mistaken about HYDIN2, therefore god?

Please explain where you're trying to go with this.

If you claim we know how this happend, then you need to show how you know, i.e. do we have a scientificly strong evidence? Can you make a repeatable, testable and verifiable test to prove this?

I am not even try to get anything related to God in here, all I am trying to show you is that the things that you thought is all KNOWN and done is really not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, if you want to claim it is not assumed but already have conclusive evidence, the burden is upon you to provide that evidence, and it has to be repeatable and verifiable. Your logic is totally backward.

Wrong again. You made the claim of an assumption first. That puts the burden of proof upon you. Running away is not a valid way to win a debate, but that is all that you ever do when you know that you have nothing.

If I had made the claim first then the burden of proof would be upon me. You have made a vague claim of "assumptions" and won't even clearly explain what those "assumptions" are.

Now in the world of science scientists sometimes do make "assumptions". They "assume" that gravity is real. They "assume" that the Sun is a star. Often when scientists use the word "assume" they are merely assuming that work that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is true. You appear to have a different definition than scientists do since you try to use it as an insult.

So once again, what were there "assumptions" and what is your evidence that they assumed anything?

As usual I am betting that you come up with nothing or run away again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you claim we know how this happend, then you need to show how you know, i.e. do we have a scientificly strong evidence? Can you make a repeatable, testable and verifiable test to prove this?

I am not even try to get anything related to God in here, all I am trying to show you is that the things that you thought is all KNOWN and done is really not.

You do not understand how do run a proper test so your questions of others are disqualified. When you are ready to learn people here will help you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you claim we know how this happend, then you need to show how you know, i.e. do we have a scientificly strong evidence? Can you make a repeatable, testable and verifiable test to prove this?

I am not even try to get anything related to God in here, all I am trying to show you is that the things that you thought is all KNOWN and done is really not.

I'm not a biologist, I don't have the expertise myself.

However there are biologists with that expertise, and their work has shown how HYDIN2 came about.

Do you have evidence to discredit their work?

 

[dcalling]

I'm not a biologist, I don't have the expertise myself.

However there are biologists with that expertise, and their work has shown how HYDIN2 came about.

Do you have evidence to discredit their work?

If you can show me their work first

 

[dcalling]

Wrong again. You made the claim of an assumption first. That puts the burden of proof upon you. Running away is not a valid way to win a debate, but that is all that you ever do when you know that you have nothing.

If I had made the claim first then the burden of proof would be upon me. You have made a vague claim of "assumptions" and won't even clearly explain what those "assumptions" are.

Now in the world of science scientists sometimes do make "assumptions". They "assume" that gravity is real. They "assume" that the Sun is a star. Often when scientists use the word "assume" they are merely assuming that work that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt is true. You appear to have a different definition than scientists do since you try to use it as an insult.

So once again, what were there "assumptions" and what is your evidence that they assumed anything?

As usual I am betting that you come up with nothing or run away again.

This is simple logic.

Since you claim you have scientificly strong evidence that we can show how HYDIN evolved into HYDIN2 naturally, the burden of prove is on you. I am simply saying, you don't have such evidence when I say it is only assumed, and not scientificly strong evidence, which should be testable, repeatable and verifiable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you can show me their work first

You're already calling the scientific consensus wrong, so you must already be familiar with their work. How can you know it's wrong if you've never read it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is simple logic.

You should not make such claims since it is rather obvious that to date you do not understand any logic. When you make a claim, such as you did about "assumptions" the burden of proof is upon you. We don't even know what they supposedly assumed or how.

Since you claim you have scientificly strong evidence that we can show how HYDIN evolved into HYDIN2 naturally, the burden of prove is on you. I am simply saying, you don't have such evidence when I say it is only assumed, and not scientificly strong evidence, which should be testable, repeatable and verifiable.

It has been supplied. It is in the article that you did not understand. I offered to help you to understand it many times.

When you apologize that offer is still on the table.

 

[eider]

Scientific atheism asserts that reason and observation are sufficient grounds to disprove the existence of God.

But since the existence of God cannot be disproven by reason or science this must be a dishonest position.

Ah ha! Indeed! Infact!

At this time the World's Physicists, Mathematicians, Astronomers are in contention about the generation of the Universe.

Some believe that the Big-B was initiated by a lone singularity.
Some believe that the Big-B can occur from singularities already within existing Universes.
Some believe in the Big-Crunch, The Universe reversing and imp[loding back to singularity.
Some Astronomers have observed galaxies moving out of sync with enticipated paths and therefore believe that there must be outside attractions such as neighbouring Universes.
And on.......
In fact, our Scientists are not sure exactly why our Universe was generated.
But there is ONE FACT that they all must agree upon, and that is:-
There is a reason for the existence of everything.
I choose to call that reason 'GOD'.