BaNaNasRuS said:
Alright here children, lets learn the mean of some commonly used words shall we
Evolution - biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life. On this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits; the natural or artificially induced process by which new and different organisms develop as a result of changes in genetic material.
Fact - something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened; truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.
I see you are going to play the definition game. Good, let's go.However, since we are in science, we should use the definitions used by science, shouldn't we?
http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html
Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
Now, the theory of evolution
cannot be a fact. Congratulations, by the scientific definitions, you have just eliminated your main thesis: evolution is true. Thanks for playing the game. Next contestant, please.
OK, now that I've shown one fallacy of your logic argument, let's go on to show your other logical fallacy.
There is no evidence
as of right now in time.
To be able to use something as evidence to prove something else, that evidence must be proven as well.
But that isn't what your definitions say.
1. "
Evidence - sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular accurate conclusion "
See, evidence is only "something that gives a
sign of the existence or truth of something." That "or proof" is a separate conclusion. Evidence can give a sign
or it can give proof. But it doesn't
have to give proof.
"
Proof - conclusive evidence: evidence or an argument that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something."
Proof is conclusive evidence. Now, I never claimed that theists have conclusive evidence. But you are claiming that theism as no evidence. The problem is that you are confusing proof with evidence. You are saying lack of convincing evidence means lack of any evidence at all. That doesn't fit the definitions you provided. Thank you for showing your position is false.
No, do you see what youre doing, the bible isnt accurate evidence,
How do you
know the Bible isn't accurate? In the previous paragraph you said:
Since we dont know if the bible is accurate or not" Now you say the Bible isn't accurate? Nice contradicting yourself in two consecutive paragraphs.
OK, dropping the sarcasm and trying to get back to a friendly discussion. What you meant to say, BaNa, is "The Bible is not
conclusive evidence because we don't know if it is accurate or not." That's an accurate statement. And I agree. The Bible is not conclusive evidence. But it
is EVIDENCE. What you have to do is find some reason for rejecting that evidence. IOW, you need to find some reason to doubt it is accurate. Some reason
other than it is evidence. Do you understand that important point? If the
only reason you reject it as evidence is because it concerns the existence of God, then that is circular reasoning.
No, you misinterpreted me
I meant science wise as in science point of view, or the science position, I didnt say or mean that science was wise as in intelligent
You could have put it as like
Science wise yes, religion wise no
you had the wrong version of wise there
sorry for the confusion there.
Then the science position is that we do not know whether God exists or not. The Bible is evidence of the existence of God but it is not
scientific evidence. But since science restricts itself to just a small subset of evidence, that doesn't reject the Bible as evidence. Only as scientific evidence.
we proved both if you want to put it that way
we proved that the earth isnt the center of the universe and we also proved that the sun was the center of the universe.
Sorry, but we only proved the first. I realize that you meant to say "the sun is the center of the solar system" rather than "sun was the center of the universe". I hope your realize what you said is wrong and has been disproved.
BUT, altho all the data
supports the sun as center of the solar system, we
have NOT proved it. It is always possible that the sun is not the center of the universe. BaNa, this is a difficult concept for people to grasp, so it's OK that you think this way. By the deductive logic science uses, you can
never prove a positive statement. Instead, what you do is falsify all the althernative explanations
you can think of. But there is always the possibility that 1) new data will falsify the theory or 2) there is another possibility that you haven't thought of.
"the experimental results may square with the hypothesis, or they may be inconsistent with it. ... but no matter how often the hypothesis is confirmed -- no matter how many apples fall downward instead of upwards --the hypothesis embodying the Newtonian gravitational scheme cannot be said to have been *proved to be true*. Any hypothesis is still sub judice and may conceivably be supplanted by a different hypothesis later on." "The Threat and the Glory", by P.B. Medawar (Nobel Prize winner in medicine), HarperCollins, New York, 1990 (original publication 1959). pp 96-101.
That the sun is the center of the solar system is strongly supported hypothesis with lots of confirmations, it isn't and
can never be proved. All science can do for certain is to falsify. Entities or ideas that are not falsified remain on the table. Since you admit that the idea of God is not falsified by science, it stays on the table.
Which is why I referred you to theists and that
they had falsified, to their satisfaction, different versions of deity. If you really want to find reasons to reject the Christian God, then the only way to do so is find out the criteria theists used to reject over versions of deity and see if those same criteria apply to the Christian God.
EXACLY! Thank you
science cannot disprove gods existence
ALSO, science cannot prove gods existence.
Right now. Don't make that an all-encompassing universal for all time.
all I ever said, straight from the beginning was that we (humans, ALL of them) cannot prove or disprove the existence of god. Some for the bible, if its real or not
Unfortunately, you still haven't realized that this was
not all that you said or that it is wrong.
1. After having made these reasonable neutral positions, you then went on to say that theism had
no evidence. We've gone over that error above.
2. You said "all humans" again above. Some humans have direct personal experience of God that does, for them, constitute conclusive evidence. All you can say is that
you don't have conclusive evidence. Not that "all humans" lack such evidence. This is the problem with creationism. It claims that "there is no evidence" when what they mean is either 1) creationists don't know of the evidence or 2) creationism doesn't accept the evidence as valid. You are making the same claim with the same problems.
The earth is not flat = The earth is round.
Back to science again. This is not an = sign. There are lots of shapes other than round. The earth could be a rectangular solid or dodecahedron and not be round. Each theory must stand or fall on its own. What you have here is the "two model" fallacy of creationism. For them, it is evolution is false = creationism is true. The fallacy is very evident there. It is just as evident here.
The aether does not exist = well maybe if I knew what aether meant
?
The aether was a hypothesized invisible medium thru which light waves traveled. This one has no = sign. If the aether did not exist, there was no other entity that would.
The earth is not less than 10,000 years old = The earth is more than 10,000 years old.
True, but trivial. The alternative theory is
not "the earth is more than 10,000 years old" but rather "the earth is 4.55 billion years old." Here again, the fallacy of the = sign is apparent. If the earth is not 10,000 years old, it could be 1 million years old and still not be 4.55 billion, couldn't it?
Each species was not specially created
what exactly do you mean by this statement
?
Just what it says. This is the basic hypothesis of creationism: each species was specially created/manufactured by God and placed on the planet.
Theists, who believe in one god, of course would say that Zeus and others dont exist because it contradicts with there god and bible.
Are you sure or are you guessing? Was Zeus given up
only because of Christianity? I think you should do some research on history there.
As Christianity became more popular, less and less people believed in, what is now called Greek mythology
That's not an answer. That's begging the answer. Why did Christianity become "more popular". You said people stopped believing in Zeus. But
why? Why pick Christianity over Zeus?
just imagine in the future, some other religion becomes more popular and then people rule out Christianity as say European mythology.
Still begs the question. WHY would a new religion become more popular?
I have never seen any evidence stating that Greek mythology is wrong
Then why did people give it up? If there is no evidence to show it is wrong, then why would people abandon it for Christianity?
I dont think there is any, weve already went through that unit about it, of course the said it wasnt real, thats the mythology part but the teachers never showed us where in fact that is was proven to be wrong, just that it is excepted as wrong in our society.
Think about it a bit. What are the stories that you read? What did they say and what did they state about the gods? I'm not being coy, but you need to think about this on your own. You are running on automatic pilot about the dogma you have been stating and need to really think about the reasons you believe as you do.
I suggest a book called
Religion and Science by Ian Barbour.
Yahweh
why cant you just use god???
Because Yahweh is a particular version of deity. I have been talking about theists falsifying other versions of deity but keeping the concept of deity itself. So I felt it was good to draw a distinction between the specific version of deity "Yahweh" and the general concept of "god" or deity.
Uhhh, because they believe in the bible
Not good enough. Theists believed the stories about the Greek gods and the Enuma Elish (the equivalent of the Bible in Babylon). But they discarded those accounts and decided they were wrong.
