Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments from ignorance

debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.
You can call me Mark if you like.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?

Fire away.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:17:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?


Wow, you must be getting ready to unload a boatload of questions on me.
You can call me Mark if you like.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:20:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?

Fire away.

Thanks.

Tell me which of these statements you believe are true.

1. Observation and experimentation are valid forms of the scientific method.
2. Life began spontaneously from non-life.
3. A proposed theory which has never been observed in the natural universe or duplicated in any experiment should be adopted by science.
4. Science has the best answers to questions about the natural world.
5. There is no evidence at all that a God exists.

Ethan
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:30:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:20:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?

Fire away.

Thanks.

Tell me which of these statements you believe are true.

1. Observation and experimentation are valid forms of the scientific method.
2. Life began spontaneously from non-life.
3. A proposed theory which has never been observed in the natural universe or duplicated in any experiment should be adopted by science.
4. Science has the best answers to questions about the natural world.
5. There is no evidence at all that a God exists.

Ethan

1 is correct.
2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.
Theories are supported by evidence. A theory which has never been observed is not a theory. 3 is not correct.
4 is obviously correct. If you were to prove your God, you would have to do it scientifically, because science is composed of the observations of humans, not gods. Humans =/= gods. You are a human. Scientific evidence is the only evidence that matters to humans, because it is the only evidence available to humans.
5 is correct. There is evidence of some sort of continuum, as logically nothing can come out of nothing. Something existing outside of existence is illogical, besides. God supposedly "existed outside of existence," because he created it. The universe is all existence.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:36:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:30:02 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?

Fire away.

Thanks.

Tell me which of these statements you believe are true.

1. Observation and experimentation are valid forms of the scientific method.
2. Life began spontaneously from non-life.
3. A proposed theory which has never been observed in the natural universe or duplicated in any experiment should be adopted by science.
4. Science has the best answers to questions about the natural world.
5. There is no evidence at all that a God exists.

Ethan

1 is correct.
2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.
Theories are supported by evidence. A theory which has never been observed is not a theory. 3 is not correct.
4 is obviously correct. If you were to prove your God, you would have to do it scientifically, because science is composed of the observations of humans, not gods. Humans =/= gods. You are a human. Scientific evidence is the only evidence that matters to humans, because it is the only evidence available to humans.
5 is correct. There is evidence of some sort of continuum, as logically nothing can come out of nothing. Something existing outside of existence is illogical, besides. God supposedly "existed outside of existence," because he created it. The universe is all existence.

As long as you exist only in the observable world, the only world you can observe is the observable world. You are dependent on scientific observation in your daily life whether you like it or not.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 4:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:36:03 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:30:02 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?

Fire away.

Thanks.

Tell me which of these statements you believe are true.

1. Observation and experimentation are valid forms of the scientific method.
2. Life began spontaneously from non-life.
3. A proposed theory which has never been observed in the natural universe or duplicated in any experiment should be adopted by science.
4. Science has the best answers to questions about the natural world.
5. There is no evidence at all that a God exists.

Ethan

1 is correct.
2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.
Theories are supported by evidence. A theory which has never been observed is not a theory. 3 is not correct.
4 is obviously correct. If you were to prove your God, you would have to do it scientifically, because science is composed of the observations of humans, not gods. Humans =/= gods. You are a human. Scientific evidence is the only evidence that matters to humans, because it is the only evidence available to humans.
5 is correct. There is evidence of some sort of continuum, as logically nothing can come out of nothing. Something existing outside of existence is illogical, besides. God supposedly "existed outside of existence," because he created it. The universe is all existence.

As long as you exist only in the observable world, the only world you can observe is the observable world. You are dependent on scientific observation in your daily life whether you like it or not.

Even though nothing can come out of nothing, how does that suggest God? It could just as easily suggest a time paradox. What gives your God more credence over the other gods if they all have the same amount of evidence and all try to explain the same thing?
You can call me Mark if you like.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 2:37:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:30:02 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?

Fire away.

Thanks.

Tell me which of these statements you believe are true.

1. Observation and experimentation are valid forms of the scientific method.
2. Life began spontaneously from non-life.
3. A proposed theory which has never been observed in the natural universe or duplicated in any experiment should be adopted by science.
4. Science has the best answers to questions about the natural world.
5. There is no evidence at all that a God exists.

Ethan

1 is correct.

It seems we agree.

2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.

We agree again. But tell me, how many prominent scientists already believe 2 to be true? Do you know how many scientists believe there is no creator ? If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life.

You don't believe there is a creator, yet you claim that #2 is false! Those two beliefs of yours seem like a contradiction to me. Can you reconcile them?

Theories are supported by evidence. A theory which has never been observed is not a theory. 3 is not correct.

Yet you have adopted and accepted #3! All observation and experimentation ever done indicates that life from non-life has never been observed in the natural universe, or duplicated in any experiment. Yet virtually every scientist has adopted and accepted #3! Tell me, since they have absolutely no evidence for life springing from non-life, why do they believe it?

4 is obviously correct. If you were to prove your God, you would have to do it scientifically, because science is composed of the observations of humans, not gods. Humans =/= gods. You are a human. Scientific evidence is the only evidence that matters to humans, because it is the only evidence available to humans.

Really? Scientific evidence is the only evidence available to humans. Before I ask you about this remarkable statement, please define "evidence" as you used it above.

5 is correct. There is evidence of some sort of continuum, as logically nothing can come out of nothing. Something existing outside of existence is illogical,....

How so? My mother for a time existed outside of me. Do you mean it some other way? Since we know time and space did not always exist, and we know that life must come from life, then we can extrapolate logically that the source of all life must have for a time existed "outside" of space and time. Is there a fault with the logic? If you think so, can you show the fault?

...besides. God supposedly "existed outside of existence," because he created it. The universe is all existence.

How do you know that the universe is all existence? Please don't tell me that that is how it is defined. Defining a cow as a frisbee does not change the cow. What logical evidence leads you to know and believe that the universe is all existence?

Thanks for answering.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 2:52:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:

As long as you exist only in the observable world, the only world you can observe is the observable world. You are dependent on scientific observation in your daily life whether you like it or not.

I agree. But if a person claims that something exists "outside" the material universe, it is quite unfair to ask him to produce part of the material universe as proof.

Even though nothing can come out of nothing, how does that suggest God?

I don't know. Who was it that stated that because nothing can come out of nothing, it suggest God?

It could just as easily suggest a time paradox.

No it couldn't, not in your world-view. You believe that the observable material universe is ALL THERE IS, remember? Can a time paradox be observed and duplicated?

What gives your God more credence over the other gods if they all have the same amount of evidence and all try to explain the same thing?

They don't all have the same evidence. But even the lack of evidence for things are not all the same lack. For example, there is not one scrap of evidence that any other life exists anywhere in the universe, yet governments around the world have spent billions looking for life. No one is looking for wormholes though. Both worm holes and aliens have the same amount of evidence (zero).

I'm pushing logic and consistency here. Bias is the enemy of logical thinking. It is a deterrent to truth. Real men of science would immediately ditch it when it is discovered in them.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:29:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

That's the messed up thing, no body would think unexplained lights in the sky justifies the existence of aliens.

But how many "God" arguments are based on the same reasoning...........

Well how do you explain it ? uh huh, you can't !!! God did it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 3:44:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 2:37:49 AM, ethang5 wrote:


2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.

We agree again. But tell me, how many prominent scientists already believe 2 to be true? Do you know how many scientists believe there is no creator ? If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life.

Says you.

Why can't life happened over a series of steps/progressions ? why does it all have to be done in one move ?

Virus ? is that a life ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 5:11:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 3:44:54 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:37:49 AM, ethang5 wrote:


2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.

We agree again. But tell me, how many prominent scientists already believe 2 to be true? Do you know how many scientists believe there is no creator ? If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life.

Says you.

Do you know of another option than creation and spontaneous?

Why can't life happened over a series of steps/progressions ? why does it all have to be done in one move ?

Neither the OP nor I have claimed that life happened all in one move. But how long it took life to develop is not the point here. How did it begin? If spontaneously, then there is no creator. If created, it did not spontaneously happen.

If you say you believe in the scientific method, and that theories without evidence should not be adopted, how do you explain scientists going against science and adopting a theory with no evidence?

Virus ? is that a life ?

The question is, does the scientific evidence point to spontaneous generation of creation?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 5:23:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 5:11:42 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 3:44:54 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:37:49 AM, ethang5 wrote:


2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.

We agree again. But tell me, how many prominent scientists already believe 2 to be true? Do you know how many scientists believe there is no creator ? If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life.

Says you.

Do you know of another option than creation and spontaneous?

Why can't life happened over a series of steps/progressions ? why does it all have to be done in one move ?

Neither the OP nor I have claimed that life happened all in one move. But how long it took life to develop is not the point here. How did it begin? If spontaneously, then there is no creator. If created, it did not spontaneously happen.

You said..." If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life."

Again, why can't "life" emerged through a series of steps/progressions from non life ?


If you say you believe in the scientific method, and that theories without evidence should not be adopted, how do you explain scientists going against science and adopting a theory with no evidence?

Virus ? is that a life ?

The question is, does the scientific evidence point to spontaneous generation of creation?

If your going to divide things into "life" and "non life" then from what I read viruses pose a problem.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 7:34:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Illegalcombantant: "You said..." If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life."

Again, why can't "life" emerged through a series of steps/progressions from non life ?"

I am trying to understand why "spontaneously" and 'through a series of steps and progressions" are mutually exclusive.
I do not get it.
Any help?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:23:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 5:23:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2015 5:11:42 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 3:44:54 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:37:49 AM, ethang5 wrote:


2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.

We agree again. But tell me, how many prominent scientists already believe 2 to be true? Do you know how many scientists believe there is no creator ? If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life.

Says you.

Do you know of another option than creation and spontaneous?

No response. What a surprise.

Why can't life happened over a series of steps/progressions ? why does it all have to be done in one move ?

Neither the OP nor I have claimed that life happened all in one move. But how long it took life to develop is not the point here. How did it begin? If spontaneously, then there is no creator. If created, it did not spontaneously happen.

You said..." If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life."

Again, why can't "life" emerged through a series of steps/progressions from non life ?

It COULD have, but ALL current scientific observation and ALL scientific experimentation points to life ALWAYS coming from life. Why does the scientific evidence for this one thing bother scientists so much?

Why is it they find it to difficult to accept and adopt what is clearly observed in nature and what every experiment so far has verified? Life comes only from life.

If you say you believe in the scientific method, and that theories without evidence should not be adopted, how do you explain scientists going against science and adopting a theory with no evidence?

No response. What a surprise.

Virus ? is that a life ?

The question is, does the scientific evidence point to spontaneous generation o[r] creation?

No response. What a surprise.

If your going to divide things into "life" and "non life" then from what I read viruses pose a problem.

I don't see how. Do you think things cannot be divided into alive and not-alive? What you've probably read are sensationalist pop science articles telling you that viruses aren't really "alive" but.....

But as usual, you won't answer any questions put to you, so see ya later.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 8:25:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 7:34:38 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Illegalcombantant: "You said..." If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life."

Again, why can't "life" emerged through a series of steps/progressions from non life ?"

I am trying to understand why "spontaneously" and 'through a series of steps and progressions" are mutually exclusive.
I do not get it.
Any help?

lol. He probably thinks "spontaneously" means "suddenly all at once".
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:06:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 5:11:42 AM, ethang5 wrote:


The question is, does the scientific evidence point to spontaneous generation of creation?

Certainly theoretical Scientists are on the path of explaining abiogenesis.
Evidence is lacking, theories remain, not excluded.
By the use of logic, and intuition, which are not science, I arrive at the conclusion that life can and has arisen from non-life.
I am one of the ones who believes Science is limited, and for an understanding of the cosmos and existence, one needs more.

The first peg is that there is no evidence that I accept that there have ever been any events beyond natural occurrences.
I find, universally, that events which purport to be unnatural (or supernatural), have naturalistic explanations that I accept.

Rainbows are an accident, not intentional.
Human life is an accident, not intentional.

I am not in the business of convincing other minds of every truth, only my own.
My mind has been convinced that what god started, can result in anything that exists, through natural processes.

The theory of panspermia brings the seed of life from a planet far away, and long ago, to a fertile, inorganic, earth.
And life arises.
The rest, as they say, is history.

No divine intervention necessary.
Once started, the remainder follows.
Comrade_Silly_Otter
Posts: 725
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:16:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?

Fire away.

Pew pew pew! Pe-eppepepeppe-e-pew! "RELOADING!"* Reloads rifle, aims again * PEW PEW Pew! Pew pew pew! Pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew-pewpepe-ep-ep-ep-pe-ep pew! " I'm out of ammo! "
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 9:28:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Even the pope accepts the facts of evolution. That should be good enough for a billion Catholics who follow the pope.
There isn't enough math or science in the bible to meet the requirements of a grade 6 schooler. It is ridiculous for Christians to quote the bible in matters of science or mathematics on a forum that expects its members to demonstrate a higher standard than a grade 6 schooler. This is not your familiar Church where the bible is the standard. This is a discussion forum where you throw stones at the institutions of ignorance and not common indoctrinated sinners.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 10:00:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:28:46 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Even the pope accepts the facts of evolution. That should be good enough for a billion Catholics who follow the pope.
There isn't enough math or science in the bible to meet the requirements of a grade 6 schooler. It is ridiculous for Christians to quote the bible in matters of science or mathematics on a forum that expects its members to demonstrate a higher standard than a grade 6 schooler. This is not your familiar Church where the bible is the standard. This is a discussion forum where you throw stones at the institutions of ignorance and not common indoctrinated sinners.

Evolution and beginning of life on earth are two separate issues - not the same.
Abiogenesis may be, or may not be, no significant effect on evolution.

In case you did not notice this section of the forum is "Religion", and many ministers have a PhD, which is significantly higher than a 6th grade education.

And there are certainly stones being thrown at the Institution of Science, I hope that improves your mood..
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 10:13:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 10:00:20 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:28:46 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Even the pope accepts the facts of evolution. That should be good enough for a billion Catholics who follow the pope.
There isn't enough math or science in the bible to meet the requirements of a grade 6 schooler. It is ridiculous for Christians to quote the bible in matters of science or mathematics on a forum that expects its members to demonstrate a higher standard than a grade 6 schooler. This is not your familiar Church where the bible is the standard. This is a discussion forum where you throw stones at the institutions of ignorance and not common indoctrinated sinners.

Evolution and beginning of life on earth are two separate issues - not the same.
Abiogenesis may be, or may not be, no significant effect on evolution.

In case you did not notice this section of the forum is "Religion", and many ministers have a PhD, which is significantly higher than a 6th grade education.

And there are certainly stones being thrown at the Institution of Science, I hope that improves your mood..
A PhDs in the bible which does even meet the math and science requirements of a grade 6 schooler has no practical validity.
There are theist evolutionist who are caught between creationist and ID (intelligent design) forced to find traces of God in evolution. But they are pseudo scientists at best and their views rejected in school curriculums where evolution is taught. You need to do better.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 10:56:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 9:06:52 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/9/2015 5:11:42 AM, ethang5 wrote:


The question is, does the scientific evidence point to spontaneous generation o[r] creation?

Certainly theoretical Scientists are on the path of explaining abiogenesis.
Evidence is lacking, theories remain, not excluded.

Evidence is lacking, yet, for abiogenesis, that lack of evidence has not deterred the scientists one bit. But the same people will scream and howl at theists for "having no evidence".

By the use of logic, and intuition, which are not science, I arrive at the conclusion that life can and has arisen from non-life.

That is fine, and everyone is free to arrive at whatever conclusion seems right to them, but be aware that you are going against All scientific observation and all experimentation ever done. Why?

Since it cannot be science motivating them, it must be something else. ..........Bias?

I am one of the ones who believes Science is limited, and for an understanding of the cosmos and existence, one needs more.

Materialists say there is nothing more.

The first peg is that there is no evidence that I accept that there have ever been any events beyond natural occurrences.

This of course, is a non-sequitur. You simply arbitrarily define "natural", an then declare that it is the set of everything. But at least you, unlike atheists, admit that your methods are not science.

I find, universally, that events which purport to be unnatural (or supernatural), have naturalistic explanations that I accept.

of course. You have already placed everything possible within the set of "natural". It cannot be otherwise.

Rainbows are an accident, not intentional.
Human life is an accident, not intentional.

My experience tells me you will run from the implications of these comments like cat with its tail on fire.

I am not in the business of convincing other minds of every truth, only my own.

There is no your truth and my truth. There is only truth.

My mind has been convinced that what god started, can result in anything that exists, through natural processes.

I won't even try to point out the huge contradiction here. Carry on. Be happy.

The theory of panspermia brings the seed of life from a planet far away, and long ago, to a fertile, inorganic, earth.
And life arises.
The rest, as they say, is history.

Where did the seeds of life from that other planet come fr....... Forget it. Carry on. Be happy.

No divine intervention necessary.
Once started, the remainder follows.

Once started by wha...... Forget it. Carry on. Be happy.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:04:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 4:20:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Tell me which of these statements you believe are true.

1. Observation and experimentation are valid forms of the scientific method.

True.

2. Life began spontaneously from non-life.

Unknown exactly, but most likely true based on the evidence so far.

3. A proposed theory which has never been observed in the natural universe or duplicated in any experiment should be adopted by science.

Sorry, but that's not how theories work, you should educate yourself on the Scientific Method.

4. Science has the best answers to questions about the natural world.

True.

5. There is no evidence at all that a God exists.

True.

Ethan

False.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:12:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Very few things are ever proven beyound all or any doubt. Maybe even nothing is. Point is we all suspend doubt and accept things as true when 'enough' evidence makes it more than nought likely.

I for one don't jump to aliens becuase of lights in the sky. Those are obviously demonic whisps crossing over into our realm
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:13:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

To claim something is false becuase it hasn't been proven true is an argument from ignorance
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:13:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 2:37:49 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:30:02 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:20:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:09:14 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/6/2015 4:04:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/6/2015 3:56:57 PM, debate_power wrote:
Let me propose the following scenario to you:

-You have all the scientific knowledge all humans do now
-You see lights in the sky
-You assume aliens from another planet are flying around

Are you right in assuming aliens are flying around if you haven't yet confirmed the existence of alien organisms?

Of course not. You'd be making an argument from ignorance in this scenario. The sad thing is that arguments from ignorance are the only arguments in the religious world.

Extraneous assumptions should be treated as false until proven correct.

Can I ask you some questions?

Fire away.

Thanks.

Tell me which of these statements you believe are true.

1. Observation and experimentation are valid forms of the scientific method.
2. Life began spontaneously from non-life.
3. A proposed theory which has never been observed in the natural universe or duplicated in any experiment should be adopted by science.
4. Science has the best answers to questions about the natural world.
5. There is no evidence at all that a God exists.

Ethan

1 is correct.

It seems we agree.

2. By my own logic, I have to assume that 2 is not yet proven to be correct. Thus, it is an extraneous assumption and false.

We agree again. But tell me, how many prominent scientists already believe 2 to be true?

Prominent scientists would never say it was true, they might say it is "likely" true based on the evidence so far.

Do you know how many scientists believe there is no creator ?

Many scientists understand there most likely isn't a Creator.

If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life.

That is one hypothesis, there could be others as well.


Yet you have adopted and accepted #3! All observation and experimentation ever done indicates that life from non-life has never been observed in the natural universe, or duplicated in any experiment. Yet virtually every scientist has adopted and accepted #3! Tell me, since they have absolutely no evidence for life springing from non-life, why do they believe it?

Again, it is one of the most likely hypothesis being pursued based on the evidence so far. And, it's not a matter of "belief" which you believers constantly invoke, it is a matter of understanding the evidence, so far. Beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Really? Scientific evidence is the only evidence available to humans. Before I ask you about this remarkable statement, please define "evidence" as you used it above.

Crack open a dictionary, you will find the definition there.

How so? My mother for a time existed outside of me. Do you mean it some other way? Since we know time and space did not always exist, and we know that life must come from life, then we can extrapolate logically that the source of all life must have for a time existed "outside" of space and time. Is there a fault with the logic? If you think so, can you show the fault?

Yes, there is a fault to that logic. Space and time and every other property of the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang, hence it is impossible for them to exist "outside" of space, time or anything else. Educate yourself in regards to the Big Bang.

How do you know that the universe is all existence? Please don't tell me that that is how it is defined.

That IS how the universe is defined.

Defining a cow as a frisbee does not change the cow.

Only an idiot would define a cow as a frisbee. Non-sequitur.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:31:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 10:13:16 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 2/9/2015 10:00:20 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:28:46 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Even the pope accepts the facts of evolution. That should be good enough for a billion Catholics who follow the pope.
There isn't enough math or science in the bible to meet the requirements of a grade 6 schooler. It is ridiculous for Christians to quote the bible in matters of science or mathematics on a forum that expects its members to demonstrate a higher standard than a grade 6 schooler. This is not your familiar Church where the bible is the standard. This is a discussion forum where you throw stones at the institutions of ignorance and not common indoctrinated sinners.

Evolution and beginning of life on earth are two separate issues - not the same.
Abiogenesis may be, or may not be, no significant effect on evolution.

In case you did not notice this section of the forum is "Religion", and many ministers have a PhD, which is significantly higher than a 6th grade education.

And there are certainly stones being thrown at the Institution of Science, I hope that improves your mood..
A PhDs in the bible which does even meet the math and science requirements of a grade 6 schooler has no practical validity.
There are theist evolutionist who are caught between creationist and ID (intelligent design) forced to find traces of God in evolution. But they are pseudo scientists at best and their views rejected in school curriculums where evolution is taught. You need to do better.

In order to be accepted into any PhD program, the applicant will have a very good understanding of math and science, better than a H.S. graduate.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:46:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 10:56:02 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 2/9/2015 9:06:52 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 2/9/2015 5:11:42 AM, ethang5 wrote:


The question is, does the scientific evidence point to spontaneous generation o[r] creation?

Certainly theoretical Scientists are on the path of explaining abiogenesis.
Evidence is lacking, theories remain, not excluded.

Evidence is lacking, yet, for abiogenesis, that lack of evidence has not deterred the scientists one bit. But the same people will scream and howl at theists for "having no evidence".


By the use of logic, and intuition, which are not science, I arrive at the conclusion that life can and has arisen from non-life.

That is fine, and everyone is free to arrive at whatever conclusion seems right to them, but be aware that you are going against All scientific observation and all experimentation ever done. Why?

Theoretical Science is not limited to observation and experimentation, by a long shot.
Even practical Science is not limited to these thing absolutely, as computer models are acceptable.
So theoretical Science says what might be possible, even probable.
This is no great leap of faith, just a very small one.

Since it cannot be science motivating them, it must be something else. ..........Bias?

I am one of the ones who believes Science is limited, and for an understanding of the cosmos and existence, one needs more.

Materialists say there is nothing more.

The first peg is that there is no evidence that I accept that there have ever been any events beyond natural occurrences.

This of course, is a non-sequitur. You simply arbitrarily define "natural", an then declare that it is the set of everything. But at least you, unlike atheists, admit that your methods are not science.

Arbitrarily to you.


I find, universally, that events which purport to be unnatural (or supernatural), have naturalistic explanations that I accept.

of course. You have already placed everything possible within the set of "natural". It cannot be otherwise.

"Already", after decades of consideration.
"Already" after considering the alternatives.

Rainbows are an accident, not intentional.
Human life is an accident, not intentional.

My experience tells me you will run from the implications of these comments like cat with its tail on fire.

I am not in the business of convincing other minds of every truth, only my own.

There is no your truth and my truth. There is only truth.

You misread me.
I and not in the business of convincing other minds of every truth, only my own mind.
Hope this helps

My mind has been convinced that what god started, can result in anything that exists, through natural processes.

I won't even try to point out the huge contradiction here. Carry on. Be happy.

What I have considered for decades, you have considered for seconds, and you believe you have a better understanding of my beliefs.
How quaint.

The theory of panspermia brings the seed of life from a planet far away, and long ago, to a fertile, inorganic, earth.
And life arises.
The rest, as they say, is history.

Where did the seeds of life from that other planet come fr....... Forget it. Carry on. Be happy.

Abiogenesis. Isn't that obvious?
I merely anticipate some spurious argument from you that 'Not on this planet it did not.'

No divine intervention necessary.
Once started, the remainder follows.

Once started by wha...... Forget it. Carry on. Be happy.

The god of the Founding Fathers of my Country, the god of Deism.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 11:50:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/9/2015 11:13:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/9/2015 2:37:49 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Tell me which of these statements you believe are true.

1. Observation and experimentation are valid forms of the scientific method.
2. Life began spontaneously from non-life.
3. A proposed theory which has never been observed in the natural universe or duplicated in any experiment should be adopted by science.
4. Science has the best answers to questions about the natural world.
5. There is no evidence at all that a God exists.

Ethan

1 is correct.

It seems we agree.

....tell me, how many prominent scientists already believe 2 to be true?

Prominent scientists would never say it was true, they might say it is "likely" true based on the evidence so far.

Give us some of that "evidence" please.

Do you know how many scientists believe there is no creator ?

Many scientists understand there most likely isn't a Creator.

If there is no creator then life MUST have began spontaneously from non-life.

That is one hypothesis, there could be others as well.

Share with us one that isn't of the two.

Yet you have adopted and accepted #3! All observation and experimentation ever done indicates that life from non-life has never been observed in the natural universe, or duplicated in any experiment. Yet virtually every scientist has adopted and accepted #3! Tell me, since they have absolutely no evidence for life springing from non-life, why do they believe it?

Again, it is one of the most likely hypothesis being pursued based on the evidence so far.

We are still waiting for one scrap of that "evidence".

And, it's not a matter of "belief" which you believers constantly invoke, it is a matter of understanding the evidence, so far. Beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Scientists say they believe all the time. The fact is, there is not one scrap of evidence that life ever came from non-life, and no experiment (and there have been many) has ever supported the idea that life came from non-life.

Really? Scientific evidence is the only evidence available to humans. Before I ask you about this remarkable statement, please define "evidence" as you used it above.

Crack open a dictionary, you will find the definition there.

There is no need for stupidity. Meanings of words come from usage, not the dictionary. Observe your word "crack" above. I found no entry in the dictionary which applies to how you used it. So it is correct to inquire about usage, and idiotic to refer the questioner to a dictionary for meaning on usage.

How so? My mother for a time existed outside of me. Do you mean it some other way? Since we know time and space did not always exist, and we know that life must come from life, then we can extrapolate logically that the source of all life must have for a time existed "outside" of space and time. Is there a fault with the logic? If you think so, can you show the fault?

Yes, there is a fault to that logic. Space and time and every other property of the universe didn't exist before the Big Bang, hence it is impossible for them to exist "outside" of space, time or anything else. Educate yourself in regards to the Big Bang.

You don't think well. We are not talking about the Bib Bang. There is no reason for you to think that space and time are exclusive to our current universe. Plus, I did not say space and time existed outside our universe. Stop trying to pretend you are some sort of really bright person. You aren't fooling anyone here. Just be who you are and don't try so hard to impress people.

How do you know that the universe is all existence? Please don't tell me that that is how it is defined.

That IS how the universe is defined.

I did not ask how the universe was defined. I asked how you know that the universe is all existence. If you don't know, simply say so.

Defining a cow as a frisbee does not change the cow.

Only an idiot would define a cow as a frisbee. Non-sequitur.

You know, with growing joy I realized that you are anal. You don't get jokes, you miss puns, and your sense of humor is as dead as Hitler. You are very poor on analogies and relationships too. Is it Aspergers?

How you define the universe does not change the universe. So telling me how you define the universe is silly. Tell me what I asked. How do you know that the universe is all there is?

I'm working out some KPI's for your being anal. Are you compulsive also? This is going to be so much fun.