Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
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'.

Why would you choose to believe in a god based on the available info?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Why would you choose to believe in a god based on the available info?
I am betting that this poster is just another hit and run. The OP was a strawman argument as we all know and the thread moved past that long before I showed up. Hit and runs tend to ignore the more recent posts in a thread.
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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?

All I said was "If you can show me their work first". If they have a consensus that something has happened, and it is not a consensus of their assumptions, you should be able to produce some work that shows how they can repeatably and verifiably test their work, right?
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.

You showed that you can't even making simple logical reasoning.

Let me ask you this. If a scientist made a claim, and anther scientist don't believe it, told the first that his claim is only an assumption, who should provide evidence of that claim?

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.
No it is not, I am assuming you are talking about Hitch's article. Read it and you will know what it is about.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You showed that you can't even making simple logical reasoning.

Wrong again. If you could reason logically this would be a lie on your part.

Let me ask you this. If a scientist made a claim, and anther scientist don't believe it, told the first that his claim is only an assumption, who should provide evidence of that claim?

This question has nothing to do with your claim. A scientist would be specific. They could point out to what supposedly was an assumption. You could not or would not do this. A scientist would not just claim that someone made an assumption if he wanted to be taken seriously. He would point out what was an assumption and explain why.

Your turn to prove your claim.

No it is not, I am assuming you are talking about Hitch's article. Read it and you will know what it is about.

But you did not understand that article. When you apologize we can go over it.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
All I said was "If you can show me their work first". If they have a consensus that something has happened, and it is not a consensus of their assumptions, you should be able to produce some work that shows how they can repeatably and verifiably test their work, right?

I don't know where to find specific papers on this subject, if I looked hard enough I likely could. However seeing as I'm not a biologist and don't have the proper education to fully understand the papers, why would I bother? The people who are actually educated in the field accept those findings, based on the available evidence.

Since you disagree with them, what evidence do you have that would overturn the scientific consensus?
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't know where to find specific papers on this subject, if I looked hard enough I likely could. However seeing as I'm not a biologist and don't have the proper education to fully understand the papers, why would I bother? The people who are actually educated in the field accept those findings, based on the available evidence.

Since you disagree with them, what evidence do you have that would overturn the scientific consensus?
You don't need to be a biologist to understand some of the fundamental issues. Most of the things in our world can be understand by us through some reading and experiments. For example, none of us needs to be a biologist to understand how we do genetic modification, how some of the methods come to form, i.e. from the initial observation back in 1900s, to the actual applicable use, how we initially did it, what are the advancements each step of the way, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, what are the experiments that are repeatable, verifiable and testable that can verify such claims, in the field of genetic modification, it is very easy as we can see how this is in use already.

Now compare that to how it is claimed that we are evolved from apes. We can't even verify how HYDIN evolved to HYDIN2. Now it does not matter how there is a so called scientific consensus, because it was scientific consensus that the earth was flat just a couple of hundred years ago isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Wrong again. If you could reason logically this would be a lie on your part.



This question has nothing to do with your claim. A scientist would be specific. They could point out to what supposedly was an assumption. You could not or would not do this. A scientist would not just claim that someone made an assumption if he wanted to be taken seriously. He would point out what was an assumption and explain why.

Your turn to prove your claim.

Let me ask you this. If you claim something is the truth, don't you need to supply evidences?

when I say something is assumed, it is the same as something is lacking evidence, and if you want to defend that something, you need to provide evidence, don't you?

But you did not understand that article. When you apologize we can go over it.
You are the one who don't understand that article. Show us where it shows that we can repeatably and verifiable shown HYDIN can evolved to HYDIN2, and I will apologize, and I will thank you for it too.

Here is the link again:
The birth of a human-specific neural gene by incomplete duplication and gene fusion
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Let me ask you this. If you claim something is the truth, don't you need to supply evidences?

What? Let me paraphrase what you said:

"If you claim something is the truth, don't you need to supply shows?"

By the way, your poor English aside I can and have supported my claims with evidence. You are the one that has failed when support was needed.

when I say something is assumed, it is the same as something is lacking evidence, and if you want to defend that something, you need to provide evidence, don't you?

Ah, then you are clearly mistaken, at best. You do not even seem to understand what is and what is not evidence. You still have to be specific about what was assumed, you could not even state that, much less support your claim.

You are the one who don't understand that article. Show us where it shows that we can repeatably and verifiable shown HYDIN can evolved to HYDIN2, and I will apologize, and I will thank you for it too.

Here is the link again:
The birth of a human-specific neural gene by incomplete duplication and gene fusion

You are back to your original error. And since you have yet to apologize no explanation is needed from me.

By the way besides not understanding what is and what is not evidence you do not appear to understand the scientific method either.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You don't need to be a biologist to understand some of the fundamental issues. Most of the things in our world can be understand by us through some reading and experiments. For example, none of us needs to be a biologist to understand how we do genetic modification, how some of the methods come to form, i.e. from the initial observation back in 1900s, to the actual applicable use, how we initially did it, what are the advancements each step of the way, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, what are the experiments that are repeatable, verifiable and testable that can verify such claims, in the field of genetic modification, it is very easy as we can see how this is in use already.

Now compare that to how it is claimed that we are evolved from apes. We can't even verify how HYDIN evolved to HYDIN2. Now it does not matter how there is a so called scientific consensus, because it was scientific consensus that the earth was flat just a couple of hundred years ago isn't it?

You see, that's your problem. You think you can understand genetics without a proper education on how genetics work. You can't.

Also, it was never the scientific consensus that the earth was flat.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: plugh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You see, that's your problem. You think you can understand genetics without a proper education on how genetics work. You can't.

Also, it was never the scientific consensus that the earth was flat.
Not only that, he does not even understand the scientific method. Until he lets himself learn he will continually propose worthless tests and "proofs".

He also does not seem to understand that man's evolution is extremely well supported. What this one mutation shows is not that man is a product of evolution sharing ancestors with other apes, it shows how man evolved.

And to top it off it is the Bible that only describes the Earth as being flat. It never describes it as a sphere. It appears he is once again projecting his flaws and the flaws of his religious beliefs upon others.
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You see, that's your problem. You think you can understand genetics without a proper education on how genetics work. You can't.

Also, it was never the scientific consensus that the earth was flat.
Can you define "proper" education?
Do you believe that people can educate themselves to be able to understand everything that is known to us?
 
Upvote 0

dcalling

Senior Member
Jan 31, 2014
3,184
323
✟107,345.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What? Let me paraphrase what you said:

"If you claim something is the truth, don't you need to supply shows?"

By the way, your poor English aside I can and have supported my claims with evidence. You are the one that has failed when support was needed.



Ah, then you are clearly mistaken, at best. You do not even seem to understand what is and what is not evidence. You still have to be specific about what was assumed, you could not even state that, much less support your claim.



You are back to your original error. And since you have yet to apologize no explanation is needed from me.

By the way besides not understanding what is and what is not evidence you do not appear to understand the scientific method either.
If you really have the evidence you don't need me to apologize to show that, and you don't have to discriminate against people who are not native English speakers.

Here is the link again, The birth of a human-specific neural gene by incomplete duplication and gene fusion
Feel free to show me what you believed so strongly about, that the article shows how HYDIN evolved to HYDIN2.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
If you really have the evidence you don't need me to apologize to show that, and you don't have to discriminate against people who are not native English speakers.

Actually you do. You broke the rules of the forum here. I did not report you, I probably should have.
Here is the link again, The birth of a human-specific neural gene by incomplete duplication and gene fusion
Feel free to show me what you believed so strongly about, that the article shows how HYDIN evolved to HYDIN2.

You are trying to change my claim. Since the mutation was identified your answer is there. But then you have no clue as to what is evidence or how the scientific method works, or even what gene duplication is. When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StTruth

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2016
501
233
Singapore (current)
✟22,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
OK....... please may I ask you a question?

Do you think that there is a reason for the existence of everything?

I can answer that one. Only a child would think there has to be a reason for everything. That is why a 3-year-old will always ask his dad, 'Why is ....?' The child might ask, 'Why do I have a mouth?'. And the patient mother will say, 'So you can speak'. This childish thought continues sometimes way into adulthood.

But when we inject a reason for the existence of everything, we are essentially implying that there is an intelligent creator who made whatever it is with a reason. Hence, people who believe that there is a reason for everything are putting the cart before the horse. They are already assuming that there is an intelligent creator.

But before we can legitimately imbue the existence of anything with a reason, we must first show that there is, in the first place, the existence of this intelligent creator who can create things with a reason. If we can't do that, we cannot attach a reason to the existence of anything. Otherwise we would be conjuring up a presupposition and letting it ride on the back of another presupposition. That's not the proper process of a rational debate.

Cheers,

St Truth
 
Upvote 0

eider

Active Member
Jun 25, 2017
155
30
75
canterbury
✟16,982.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I can answer that one. Only a child would think there has to be a reason for everything.
...Or a scientist?

But when we inject a reason for the existence of everything, we are essentially implying that there is an intelligent creator who made whatever it is with a reason.
Science does not inject reasons. Science observes, measures, calculates and reports what it can discover.

But before we can legitimately imbue the existence of anything with a reason...
'Legitimately imbue'? Really?
Science does not 'imbue' anything.

There is a reason for everything that we know about, whether we know its reason or not.
There was a reason for the initiation of our Universe, and there may be others beyond that, and on, and on, but there is a reason for their existence.

Mostly any child could tell you that, and out of the mouths of babes....?

Cheers,

St Truth
No probs, and thanks for your post. :)
 
Upvote 0

StTruth

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2016
501
233
Singapore (current)
✟22,369.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
...Or a scientist?

No, only a very young child who can't think straight.


.
Science does not inject reasons. Science observes, measures, calculates and reports what it can discover.

Read what I wrote again. What you said is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote. I was objecting to the injecting of reason to the existence of everything. I was saying that is wrong. To inject reason is wrong. This is what I wrote:

"But when we inject a reason for the existence of everything, we are essentially implying that there is an intelligent creator who made whatever it is with a reason. Hence, people who believe that there is a reason for everything are putting the cart before the horse. They are already assuming that there is an intelligent creator."

.
'Legitimately imbue'? Really?
Science does not 'imbue' anything.

Precisely, that's what I said. I have a feeling you don't understand what I wrote. Try reading it again. Perhaps English is not your native language? Then I suggest looking up a dictionary. This is what I wrote:

"But before we can legitimately imbue the existence of anything with a reason, we must first show that there is, in the first place, the existence of this intelligent creator who can create things with a reason. If we can't do that, we cannot attach a reason to the existence of anything. Otherwise we would be conjuring up a presupposition and letting it ride on the back of another presupposition. That's not the proper process of a rational debate."

.
There is a reason for everything that we know about, whether we know its reason or not.
There was a reason for the initiation of our Universe, and there may be others beyond that, and on, and on, but there is a reason for their existence.

Mostly any child could tell you that

Only your last statement is correct. Only a child thinks there should be a reason to everything. That's because a child is not capable of rational thinking.

Why should there be a reason for everything? Because a child says so?

I'm brutally honest because I am...

St Truth
 
Upvote 0

eider

Active Member
Jun 25, 2017
155
30
75
canterbury
✟16,982.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No, only a very young child who can't think straight.
No no...... :D
Any true scientist could tell you that there has to be a reason for everything that we know about.
And it's not a bad theory to assume there is going to be a reason for everything that we don't know about.

Children 1 - StTruth 0 . :p

Read what I wrote again. What you said is a total misrepresentation of what I wrote. I was objecting to the injecting of reason to the existence of everything. I was saying that is wrong. To inject reason is wrong. This is what I wrote:
I know what you wrote, and you were wrong.
No true Scientist injects reasons. Scientists search for causes and effects; actions and reactions. Reasons!

Precisely, that's what I said. I have a feeling you don't understand what I wrote. Try reading it again. Perhaps English is not your native language? Then I suggest looking up a dictionary. This is what I wrote:
Begging your pardon but your English seems very strange to me........ just look at what you write.
Read it yourself....... :D

"But before we can legitimately imbue.............."
Little Oxford : Legitimate = Lawful, justifiable.
Imbue = Fill with feelings, qualities or emotions.....

StTruth, Science works with theorems, facts, knowledge, not feelings and emotions. It would help your English if you would look it all up before you write it down. :p

Only your last statement is correct. Only a child thinks there should be a reason to everything. That's because a child is not capable of rational thinking.
Why should there be a reason for everything? Because a child says so?
No StTruth, there is a reason for everything that exists because so far in our searches we have found as much.
Our best Physicists, Astronomers and mathematicians could tell you that as well as mostly any kid.

Ask Professor Hawking, he wrote a book about just that subject.

I'm brutally honest because I am...

St Truth
Well, I don't believe that you tell fibs, you're just disillusioned imo. The problem could be that you have placed your hands over your eyes and keep saying 'Nah! Nah! Nah!' so that you can neither see nor hear the simple truth, that there is a reason for all.

And by the way, although I choose to call that reason God, it doesn't mean that I believe in a God that cares any more about you or me than the grass growing beside my home. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No no...... :D
Any true scientist could tell you that there has to be a reason for everything that we know about.
And it's not a bad theory to assume there is going to be a reason for everything that we don't know about.

Children 1 - StTruth 0 . :p

No, you clearly have no heard of quantum mechanics. On the microscopic level all we have are probabilities.

I know what you wrote, and you were wrong.
No true Scientist injects reasons. Scientists search for causes and effects; actions and reactions. Reasons!

Yes, but sometimes there aren't any, at least in the sense that you seem to be using the word.

Begging your pardon but your English seems very strange to me........ just look at what you write.
Read it yourself....... :D

"But before we can legitimately imbue.............."
Little Oxford : Legitimate = Lawful, justifiable.
Imbue = Fill with feelings, qualities or emotions.....

StTruth, Science works with theorems, facts, knowledge, not feelings and emotions. It would help your English if you would look it all up before you write it down. :p

You really need to cut down on the smiley usage. Inappropriate use of smileys is against the rules here now. If anything it appears that you did not understand his post. In that case you should be asking questions politely and properly.

No StTruth, there is a reason for everything that exists because so far in our searches we have found as much.
Our best Physicists, Astronomers and mathematicians could tell you that as well as mostly any kid.

Ask Professor Hawking, he wrote a book about just that subject.

Yes, there probably is. But that does not imply that a god did it. That appears to be your assumption.

Well, I don't believe that you tell fibs, you're just disillusioned imo. The problem could be that you have placed your hands over your eyes and keep saying 'Nah! Nah! Nah!' so that you can neither see nor hear the simple truth, that there is a reason for all.

Oh my! Massive projection.

And by the way, although I choose to call that reason God, it doesn't mean that I believe in a God that cares any more about you or me than the grass growing beside my home. :)

And if you want to claim that such a god exists then the burden of proof is upon you. You have tried to tone it down from the obvious false god that one gets from reading the Bible, but it is still an unproved assumption on your part.
 
Upvote 0