Sharpshooter Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 That 'last post' i was referring to is actually the one below. Same idea, but less words. Maybe you'll be less confused this time. Your words. Doesn't quite jive with your talk about not having to consider the if. You've been throwing around some 100% sure comments too, unless I'm quite mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 That 'evolution' does not link to any God is something you take on faith but not fact. You think it's unnecessary, highly unlikely, improbable etc... whichever way you slice it - it's an opinion. It's something that can't be proven or disproven through science. Maybe that says more about the world and that there is more to meets the eye? It's for certain that science can explain what we can see or observe, but it can't look into anything beyond itself and into the 'metaphysical'... those are questions that theology attempt to answer. I do believe in God and yes I take it on faith but that's not to say it's not compatable with logic or reason or as the Sh. in the video i recently posted said, with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Can you disprove that science isn't linked to a teapot orbiting Jupiter right now?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 This thread reads like a grade 10 science class. Sharp is 100% correct. Others are idiots in this case, that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 Can you disprove that science isn't linked to a teapot orbiting Jupiter right now?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Having absolute faith in something as it's presented to you and showing a complete unwillingness to discuss it logically because it might interfere with what you believe to be true? Zounds, you sure are different than the religious folk you hate so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Is this another way of saying "Yes I take it on faith that there is no God"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awall011 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I quoted the more wordy one, since that's what I originally addressed. Perhaps the confusion lays within what passes for comprehension in your brain. I also never said that scientists do say speak with 100% certainty about anything....that doesn't mean that they don't hold scientific theories as fact. Again, maybe you should read more carefully. It's based on idtiotic statements like: Again, what alternate scientific 'theory' or 'theories' is/are there to possibly explain life aside from evolution?? I'm waiting for you to answer this, since you were so keen on telling me how open you are to other 'theoretical possibilities'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Anyways, I'm done pursuing a conversation with someone about whether Evolution is 100% correct or only 99.9% correct, because then I become a pathetic person too. I'll leave with this: William Kingdon Clifford said in his 1884 paper The Scientific Basis of Morals, that 'If I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.' The only way to get answers is to ask questions until you can't think of another one to ask. The Theory of Evolution is hardly up in the air - That was the entire point of the joke I made with the National Geographic cover. It's hilarious that it's still referred to as a 'theory' - but using the Scientific Method, you always, always, always, always, always ask more questions. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Having absolute faith in something as it's presented to you and showing a complete unwillingness to discuss it logically because it might interfere with what you believe to be true? Zounds, you sure are different than the religious folk you hate so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 The Scientific Community, since the Enlightenment, has been extremely careful about referring to anything that isn't absolute fact as a Theory. It's just common policy, because calling something a fact when there are unanswered questions is an affront to the understanding of the Universe. So, yes, the 'Theory' of Evolution is just that. A fairly certain theory that, for many reasons, not the least of which is not having documentation throughout evolutionary history, cannot be called fact. But, yes, i'm of the belief that Evolution is correct. Calling it a fact is simply not true until all other theories can be 100% disproven. The point is, I wasn't saying Evolution wasn't a thing, I was saying that the Scientific Community is really giving as much benefit of the doubt as possible by not just saying 'Evolution. It's a thing that happened. Quit questioning it, it's silly' Carl Sagan said "The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." There are people currently trying to disprove gravity ffs. If they manage to do it, does that mean we were all dumb for believing what we believed? The goal of science is to find truth, no matter how inconvenient. Even if part of that inconvenience is leaving something like 'The Theory of Evolution' open for discussion so that all opposing views can be heard and quashed. And if Evolution is fact, then what worry would you have of someone questioning it? What's important isn't whether Evolution happened, or whether Gravity is real, or whether we can find the Higgs-Boson. What's important is the truth, good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Like Matt Dillahunty said: Even if you could disprove evolution, it wouldn't prove creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Well, there's literally no scenario where we could prove creationism, is there? Short of a serious appearance by the big dude and some really, really awesome miracles and displays of power. I mean, it's still not proof, but I'd probably take the guy at his word if he could make the Sun dance in the sky or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I never said anything about scientific theories, it would be more of a theological theory i suppose. But if it makes you feel better, let's toss the theory word all together, and just call it an idea. So can we agree that 99.9% /= 100%? So what is the other 0.1%? However small, it would have to represent some alternative to the overwhelmingly most likely option. Keep digging that hole if you like, I'm going to bed. See you tomorrow if I'm bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 If there's mental gymnastic maneuver that can be performed, I have utmost faith in your ability to stick the landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 0.01% =/= evidence of God or evidence for other 'theological theories'. If anything, the 0.01% is symbolic of science's ever vigilant desire to always improve on its knowledge and to not follow in absolutism. You can argue semantics with me all night long if you'd like. It's perfectly amusing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super19 Posted August 24, 2012 Author Share Posted August 24, 2012 Like Matt Dillahunty said: Even if you could disprove evolution, it wouldn't prove creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Well, there's literally no scenario where we could prove creationism, is there? Short of a serious appearance by the big dude and some really, really awesome miracles and displays of power. I mean, it's still not proof, but I'd probably take the guy at his word if he could make the Sun dance in the sky or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coleman26 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 To be honest, I'm not even going to pick one. If a dude shows up and starts making the Sun and Moon dance in the sky, and he says he's Xenu and we were all wrong and Scientology was, somehow, correct, I'm going to get behind the guy who is making the Sun and Moon dance in the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Dude, that is literally all I've been preaching. I'm not even saying there's a logical answer other than Evolution. I just don't think that Science should ever be in the business of closing the doors to new ideas just because they're pretty sure about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.