Best reason for the holiday season

[wxtornado]

However, you go after believers like a pitbull on feral cat. What is your need to convert people to lack of a belief system?

That's your opinion, but I disagree. Can you link me to where I've gone after believers like a pitbull on a feral cat??

 

[toppick08]

I don't have to, since I am not the one that is claiming that something exists or that something is true. I already have the default position. And since you have never presented any objective evidence and proof that your deity exists or that the bible is true, the null hypothesis that states that your deity does not exist, and that the bible is a book of myths, remains unchallenged.

Then why do you hang out in the religion forum if you just don't care(believe). Something must be tugging at your heart.

 

[wxtornado]

Well, you can't just say the notion that the ocean is purple is false, either. Should you make that assertion, you've created a whole new problem to solve. You assert the notion false, you must prove it false. You can certainly point out that the proof is insufficient for you, but you cannot assert the opposite is therefore true.

Think Darwin. Evolution is a theory. It is unproven, because there is sufficient doubt as to the theory due to lack of sufficient evidence. That doesn't mean evolution is false - it means it's unproven. Toppick's form of belief may contain insufficient evidence for you to believe, but that doesn't make it false.

Umm, if I follow you correctly, we certainly *can* prove that the ocean is whatever color it is - it's testable. Am I not understanding you here?

And no offense, but you have no idea what the word theory means in a scientific context. If you did, you wouldn't have stated what you did above regarding evolution.

 

[Xaquin44]

Well, you can't just say the notion that the ocean is purple is false, either. Should you make that assertion, you've created a whole new problem to solve. You assert the notion false, you must prove it false. You can certainly point out that the proof is insufficient for you, but you cannot assert the opposite is therefore true.

It isn't a problem to solve .... go look at an ocean and you will find that it is not purple. I used that example because it was easy and obvious.

Think Darwin. Evolution is a theory. It is unproven, because there is sufficient doubt as to the theory due to lack of sufficient evidence. That doesn't mean evolution is false - it means it's unproven. Toppick's form of belief may contain insufficient evidence for you to believe, but that doesn't make it false.

Evolution has been proven in several instances. I put in 4 or so examples in a thread a few weeks ago. I don't remember the name, but they're there.

 

[wxtornado]

Then why do you hang out in the religion forum if you just don't care(believe). Something must be tugging at your heart.

I like hearing other's opinions and like to offer my own. And people like to hear my opinion, or so I've found out

 

[This_person]

That's your opinion, but I disagree.

Then we can choose to disagree. As you say, it's my opinion, based upon reading you in religion forums.

However, that does not answer the question. It's clear you have no belief system. If you did, then you would have something to prove, like you suggest Toppick does. Since you don't believe anything, you have nothing to prove. Since you have nothing to prove, you don't believe anything. It's the only logical conclusion.

But, you take the time out of your day to challenge other people's beliefs. This is routine. You rarely (if ever) have posted anything along the lines of "well, yes, I can see your point regarding religion, but I disagree...." Instead, you challenge the believers to prove their assertations - knowing full well that it's called faith because of the lack of physical proof. Since you know the physical proof doesn't exist, and you know the people of faith simply believe because it's their choice to believe (or they've been witness to what they would consider a miracle that convinced them), the only conclusion I can come to is that you are trying to destroy their faith. My question is, what drives you to destroy someone's faith?

 

[This_person]

Umm, if I follow you correctly, we certainly *can* prove that the ocean is whatever color it is - it's testable. Am I not understanding you here?

The ocean color is provable. My point was, you have to prove the ocean a different color before you can say the claim that "the ocean is purple" is false. If you cannot prove what color the ocean is, you can say that the statement "the ocean is purple" is unproved, but you can't say it's false. Ergo, you can say that the statement "there is a diety" is unproven, but you cannot say it is false.

And no offense, but you have no idea what the word theory means in a scientific context. If you did, you wouldn't have stated what you did above regarding evolution.

Please enlighten me.

 

[This_person]

It isn't a problem to solve .... go look at an ocean and you will find that it is not purple. I used that example because it was easy and obvious.

See above

Evolution has been proven in several instances. I put in 4 or so examples in a thread a few weeks ago. I don't remember the name, but they're there.

You have four examples proving human evolution?

 

[wxtornado]

Instead, you challenge the believers to prove their assertations - knowing full well that it's called faith because of the lack of physical proof. Since you know the physical proof doesn't exist, and you know the people of faith simply believe because it's their choice to believe (or they've been witness to what they would consider a miracle that convinced them), the only conclusion I can come to is that you are trying to destroy their faith. My question is, what drives you to destroy someone's faith?

Your conclusion is wrong. I don't know if any physical proof exists for a theists assertions, that's why I ask.

 

[wxtornado]

The ocean color is provable. My point was, you have to prove the ocean a different color before you can say the claim that "the ocean is purple" is false.

That's what I am saying. The color of the ocean is testable and can be proven.

 

[This_person]

Your conclusion is wrong. I don't know if any physical proof exists for a theists assertions, that's why I ask.

I apologize for giving you too much credit. I presumed you understood the concept of faith and belief. I presumed you understood the lack of complete, physical evidence. Especially when you made the statements like "but you can't prove it".

I apologize for overestimating you understanding.

 

[tommyjones]

See aboveYou have four examples proving human evolution?

TP, you have had a couple of good posts while i was gone to lunch


So lets say no to direct proof of human evolution, but conceed proof of other animals evolution. Does that mean everything other than humans evolved and we were created?

 

[wxtornado]

I apologize for giving you too much credit. I presumed you understood the concept of faith and belief. I presumed you understood the lack of complete, physical evidence. Especially when you made the statements like "but you can't prove it".

I apologize for overestimating you understanding.

No apology necessary - that's why we are here posting on these forums

 

[This_person]

That's what I am saying. The color of the ocean is testable and can be proven.

Okay, so clearly we need to do this one leg at a time, as you demonstrated above.

Initial statement: "the ocean is purple"

Proof: none

Is the statement false? No, the statement is unproven.

Test: Check the color of the ocean

Result: Water is clear, appears primarily blue and sometimes green due to other effects.

Conclusion: The ocean is not purple, it is clear, with a visual appearance of other colors at different times.

Initial hypothesis - false.


Initial statement: There is a diety.

Is the statement false? No, it is unproven

 

[wxtornado]

Okay, so clearly we need to do this one leg at a time, as you demonstrated above.

Initial statement: "the ocean is purple"

Proof: none

Is the statement false? No, the statement is unproven.

Test: Check the color of the ocean

Result: Water is clear, appears primarily blue and sometimes green due to other effects.

Conclusion: The ocean is not purple, it is clear, with a visual appearance of other colors at different times.

Initial hypothesis - false.


Initial statement: There is a diety.

Is the statement false? No, it is unproven

After aallllll that, are you basically trying to say that the statement "There is a diety" is not false, it's unproven? Ooookay.

 

[This_person]

TP, you have had a couple of good posts while i was gone to lunch


So lets say no to direct proof of human evolution, but conceed proof of other animals evolution. Does that mean everything other than humans evolved and we were created?

It would imply that the animals proven to have evolved (from lifeless water and the basic elements available at the time, of course, would needed to be provided in the proof), have evolved. It would neither prove nor disprove any other living species.

Now, if the proof is that animals changed over time, that would add to the hypothesis that humans changed over time. However, it would provide no proof to the origin of the life in the first place.

 

[This_person]

After aallllll that, are you basically trying to say that the statement "There is a diety" is not false, it's unproven? Ooookay.

It's all I was saying here, too:

Well, you can't just say the notion that the ocean is purple is false, either. Should you make that assertion, you've created a whole new problem to solve. You assert the notion false, you must prove it false. You can certainly point out that the proof is insufficient for you, but you cannot assert the opposite is therefore true.

Think Darwin. Evolution is a theory. It is unproven, because there is sufficient doubt as to the theory due to lack of sufficient evidence. That doesn't mean evolution is false - it means it's unproven. Toppick's form of belief may contain insufficient evidence for you to believe, but that doesn't make it false.

 

[tommyjones]

It would imply that the animals proven to have evolved (from lifeless water and the basic elements available at the time, of course, would needed to be provided in the proof), have evolved. It would neither prove nor disprove any other living species.

Now, if the proof is that animals changed over time, that would add to the hypothesis that humans changed over time. However, it would provide no proof to the origin of the life in the first place.

agreed, and there is evidence that humans have changed in form over the last few hundred years. wouldn't that indicate that evolution of humans is likely?(not making any statements about initial creation of life)

 

[This_person]

agreed, and there is evidence that humans have changed in form over the last few hundred years. wouldn't that indicate that evolution of humans is likely?(not making any statements about initial creation of life)

I would certainly agree that the evidence exists that humans have grown taller, live longer, etc., etc. Yes, there is evidence to support the hypothesis that mankind has changed over the last few hundred years.

I'll go even further. I can show evidence that tires have changed over the last few decades. They last longer, have changed in average size, thickness, and even in substance. We have a really good idea why that happened, since we humans created tires. We also have a really good idea why the bulk of humans have changed over the last few hundred years, with better food, shelter, medicines, etc.

As you say, though, this has absolutely nothing to do with the initial creation of life. Nor does the change in humans imply any change of form beyond what can be demonstrated with proper nutrition and good drugs.

I've seen a caterpillar turn into a butterfly, and I've seen a tadpole turn into a frog. That doesn't prove a fish can become a man.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Umm, if I follow you correctly, we certainly *can* prove that the ocean is whatever color it is - it's testable. Am I not understanding you here?

And no offense, but you have no idea what the word theory means in a scientific context. If you did, you wouldn't have stated what you did above regarding evolution.

Main Entry:
the·o·ry Listen to the pronunciation of theory
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural the·o·ries
Etymology:
Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date:
1592

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Even the fifth definition does not say proven. Plausible is far different from proven.