06 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayCan you actually explain how you think inferred evidence is the same as faith?
It is simple, if I tell you this test proves X and we can show X in real
time to witness it, wow we are done once we test for X. If you tell me
that this test proves Y, but you can never really know for sure, you
have to acknowledge you can never really know for sure, to do other
wise is just faith.
Kelly
Not knowing something 100% doesn't translate to just having faith that it is that way. Like MattP mentioned in his example, just because we haven't dropped a baseball, doesn't mean we don't have any evidence that it will behave the same way as a tennis ball. It's certainly not faith that that we're going on to say so - it's evidence that items with very similar relevant properties will be acted upon in nature the same way.
Faith is believing something without evidence.
We see things in our world that infer other things and that's definitely evidence. Even in some cases where we don't know something 100%, that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence for it and we're just going on faith.
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMy point if you cared to read it, was just that, even the Big Bang leaves
[b]… A small dense object is not nothing, it is a small dense object that
came from...where? Get my point; there is nothing that theory has
that touches creation; it avoids it like the plague. …
As MattP was at pains to extremely clearly and quite correctly point out in his last post:
“The Big Bang theory refers to the rapid expansion of ...[text shortened]... avoid the “metaphysical” of time before the big bang when they don’t believe such a time exists?[/b]
that part alone, it has too. You wish to suggest time wasn't before the
big bang that is fine with me, again my point is creation and the
big bang are not the same thing because the big bang does not
touch on how it all started, it starts at some point in a process you
have no clue how it began, and cannot even venture a guess. It is the
same with all the processes in the universe we study, it is always the
middle of the process, and best guess on how it started, nothing
beyond that.
Kelly
06 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MattPYou wouldn't know what evidense to look for, or do you, what do you
There is no evidence at all for what created the universe, so you are foolish if you believe in creationism - the only logical thing to believe is that we dont know at the moment.
As for your comments about "science being what people believe", you have once again shown your lack of understanding. The reason people "believe" science is because the conclusio on, as science is NOT dependant on the beliefs of the scientists conducting the experiment.
think you'd see if the universe was created, and what evidense do you
have that suggest it wasn't? I have paided attention to your points
I just do not agree with them, you prove my point, people believe in
them, therefore it is good science, if they did not believe, it would not
be good science, in fact those that do not believe get called names,
they are accused of being anti-science and so on.
Kelly
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattPSo you are suggesting that if people don't believe science, and people
There is no evidence at all for what created the universe, so you are foolish if you believe in creationism - the only logical thing to believe is that we dont know at the moment.
As for your comments about "science being what people believe", you have once again shown your lack of understanding. The reason people "believe" science is because the conclusio ...[text shortened]... on, as science is NOT dependant on the beliefs of the scientists conducting the experiment.
can part ways and it is still good science?
Kelly
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattPI'm not saying you cannot extend it, but the more you do the greater
Wrong! You can extend valid scientific/mathematical theories to beyond what is directly observed. Why would a method which has been proven to reliable suddenly not be reliable?
If I drop a tennis ball from my outstretched arm, I will observe it falling down to the ground - do you agree with this?
Now, I have never dropped a baseball (as we dont really ...[text shortened]... lso fall, or am I using a reasoned logic based on my experience and on scientific theory?
the chance of error if it is possible other factors can come into play.
Kelly
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, but you pisses people off by demand qustions answered, but not answering questions yourself.
You ever see me go after anyone here the way my name is smeared?
You are a piece of work.
Kelly
How old do you believe the Earth is?
Asked a several times, but never answered?
Either you don't know, you don't care, or you're afrid to answer.
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattP"There is no evidence at all for what created the universe, so you are foolish if you believe in creationism - the only logical thing to believe is that we dont know at the moment. "
There is no evidence at all for what created the universe, so you are foolish if you believe in creationism - the only logical thing to believe is that we dont know at the moment.
As for your comments about "science being what people believe", you have once again shown your lack of understanding. The reason people "believe" science is because the conclusio ...[text shortened]... on, as science is NOT dependant on the beliefs of the scientists conducting the experiment.
No, that is the fact we do not know, we cannot prove anything, you can
believe what you will. You want to believe there was not God, god, or
gods involved that is up to you, it cannot be shown true just as saying
that God did it, all are beliefs, and as soon as you accept one it from
that point on colors everything else you see.
Kelly
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasLike a lot of things you are wrong, go back to page nine.
No, but you pisses people off by demand qustions answered, but not answering questions yourself.
[b]How old do you believe the Earth is?
Asked a several times, but never answered?
Either you don't know, you don't care, or you're afrid to answer.[/b]
Kelly
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJaySo people have no choice but to believe what they want to believe, is that it? Amazing.
"There is no evidence at all for what created the universe, so you are foolish if you believe in creationism - the only logical thing to believe is that we dont know at the moment. "
No, that is the fact we do not know, we cannot prove anything, you can
believe what you will. You want to believe there was not God, god, or
gods involved that is up to yo ...[text shortened]... s, and as soon as you accept one it from
that point on colors everything else you see.
Kelly
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJay… My point if you cared to read it, was just that, even the Big Bang leaves
My point if you cared to read it, was just that, even the Big Bang leaves
that part alone, it has too. You wish to suggest time wasn't before the
big bang that is fine with me, again my point is creation and the
big bang are not the same thing because the big bang does not
touch on how it all started, it starts at some point in a process you
have no cl ...[text shortened]... ways the
middle of the process, and best guess on how it started, nothing
beyond that.
Kelly
that part alone…
Actually that was our point. But your point was that the big bang is flawed because it leaves that part alone! If you deny this;
Reminder of your previous quote:
“A small dense object is not nothing, it is a small dense object that
came from...where? Get my point; there is nothing that theory has
that touches creation; it avoids it like the plague. That theory is
so believed by many they just revolt at the thought of looking
at the time before the big bang because it automatically takes them
where they do not want to go, the metaphysical.”
Is that your criticism of the big bang because the creation of the small dense object is not part of the big bang theory? yes? No?
Of course it is. And, as I was at pains to point out:
“ … that is just like saying the theory that the Earth is round and not flat is an invalid theory because it “avoids the issue of where the Earth came from like the plague”. You could make this same kind of totally illogical criticism of any hypothesis not directly to do with creation thus rubbish any hypothesis no matter how much evidence there is to support it. What is relevant to the credibility of a theory is not the things that the theory is not about but rather what evidence exists to support the theory …”
…You wish to suggest time wasn't before the
big bang that is fine with me, …
It is not me “suggest time wasn't before the big bang”, it is PART of the Big Bang theory that time began then -and you still haven’t answered my question on this which was:
“…you should know that those that believe that the big bang happened and have understood the theory believe time began at the big bang and thus there is no “time before the big bang” as you said. -so how can they be trying to avoid the “metaphysical” of time before the big bang when they don’t believe such a time exists? “
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJay… You WANT to believe there was not God… (my emphasis)
"There is no evidence at all for what created the universe, so you are foolish if you believe in creationism - the only logical thing to believe is that we dont know at the moment. "
No, that is the fact we do not know, we cannot prove anything, you can
believe what you will. You want to believe there was not God, god, or
gods involved that is up to yo ...[text shortened]... s, and as soon as you accept one it from
that point on colors everything else you see.
Kelly
What he WANTS has nothing to do with his belief that there is no god because, like virtually all atheists, he does not “choose” his beliefs according to his wants, emotions etc.
I hope very much you would attempt to answer just this one question: What is the premise of your belief that atheists “choose” to be atheists?
06 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, thank you for paying attention to my points but you have not understood this discussion and have miss-interpreted what has been said.
You wouldn't know what evidense to look for, or do you, what do you
think you'd see if the universe was created, and what evidense do you
have that suggest it wasn't? I have paided attention to your points
I just do not agree with them, you prove my point, people believe in
them, therefore it is good science, if they did not believe, it would not
be go ...[text shortened]... at do not believe get called names,
they are accused of being anti-science and so on.
Kelly
"You wouldnt know what evidence to look for,... ...., what do you think you'd see if the universe was created and what evidence do you have to suggest it wasnt"
You are again using bad logic and resorting to "negative proof". Creationists have come up with the idea that the Earth was created by a god - they have come up with this idea with no evidence out of thin air. They then ignore the wealth of evidence which diss-proves their claims without providing any evidence in support of their claims. For example, you (and some creationists) ignore radiological dating and insist the Earth is younger then is really is. Creationists ignore fossils, and as Andrew pointed out, they ignore geological evidence that the Earth is much older then they say (sedimentary layers etc...). Some of them even resort to the ridiculas "god made the Earth so that it looked older then it is: the Earth is 6000 years old but god put evidence there to suggest it is much older" argument - which is clearly based on a massive assumption which can not be tested for so is not science.
Now back to my point about "negative proof". It is not for creationists to make a claim and then demand that people prove it wrong, they must provide evidence for the claim or there is no case to answer.
As for your point about "people believe in science, therefore it is good science ... ... those that do not believe are called names". THIS IS NOT TRUE AT ALL! People "believe" science because it has reproducible observations as evidence. Science is not just some scientists telling people how things work based on what they personally think - science involves systematic investigation which yields repeatable results. If you dont believe Maxwell's equations you can experiment with electromagnetism and see that they are correct; if you dont believe in the kinetic gas theory you can experiment with gasses and see that they are correct; if you dont believe in classical mechanics you can conduct projectile experiments to see that it is correct; the list goes on and on.
My point is that science is "believed" because scientific conclusions have been arrived at via systematic experiments which are REPEATABLE. As I have said twice now: SCIENCE IS INDEPENDENT OF THE VIEWS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS THAT CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS; two scientists with different personal views will observe the same results if they do the exact same experiment and will be forced by logic and scientific method to come to the same conclusions - regardless of what they both believe.
Science is not about "believe" of "faith", it is about "truth" and "knowledge" - two things that you do not understand.