garcon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) You are starting to enter the ream of faith now though... You can't prove that In a way, yes. I have faith in science, and that science will one day explain many things that we don't currently understand. Edited May 21, 2010 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) If you're going to continue to pick holes in turns of phrase then there's little point in this. I dismiss it because there's no evidence for it in the same context as I dismiss the idea of unaided human flight. If someone came along and showed it could be done then I would make a judgement on that in same way that if someone came along with evidence of a creator I would make a judgement based on that. Are you a creationist? You don't read my posts properly do you... You also think you are allowed to pick holes but I am not... Double standards from you all day fella... Edited May 21, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) In a way, yes. I have faith in science, and that science will one day explain many things that we don't currently understand. That was the point I was badly trying to make... Edited May 21, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 You don't read my posts properly do you... There's been a lot today, in my defence. Are you a creationist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 Can I just say that no scientist would do that... If there is no proof either way then it remains possible... Science only concerns itself what can be proven... It makes no judgement on what can not be proven... If it did we would never discover anything... That is pretty much textbox science... Sorry oafc, I disagree. That we can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The scientific process only evaluates the evidence at hand. And science doesn't prove anything. Proof is a concept of mathematics or law. Not science Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Are you a creationist? I don't believe the bibles story of creation... I do believe in god the creator... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 Ok you clearly have no clue what you are talking about... We can chart ourselves back 2 million years, to the point where humans and apes some what coexisted... The point where humans and apes split has never been shown... There are only theories... Again. Go research the fossil record. You have been listening to creationist propaganda. Besides, as I just said, there is no split between humans and apes. We still ARE Apes. The evidence is irrefutable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Sorry oafc, I disagree. shock horror Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 In a way, yes. I have faith in science, and that science will one day explain many things that we don't currently understand. You don't have "faith" in science Science is demonstrable. It works. It yields results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 You pose the easiest to debunk theory there is. You say you can't accept the big bang as something had to be there before? Your solution is a sentient being - a creator. What created the creator? My work here is done. To be fair I never debunked the big bang theory. Your idea of who created the creator, is the same argument that I would use to bring about the idea of a creator/a primary mover. There either has to be an initial point of creation or time would need to be infinitely going backwards with creator after creator. Even if you think the latter possible, then you have to consider time. Who created time itself? Off that concept (i.e. someone created time), there is no before that creator. There is just him/it being. I guess like everyone we look for the answers, but I'm not Aristotle and this isn't Plato's Academy - so I think we're unlikely to come up with the final answers here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I don't believe the bibles story of creation... I do believe in god the creator... What evidence do you have for this? Also, do you believe that this creator is omnipotent and omnipresent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Well as much as this has been fun... I have a fun packed weekend with my daughter to go enjoy Later people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 What evidence do you have for this? Also, do you believe that this creator is omnipotent and omnipresent? Out of time fella... Perhaps pick this up monday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Can I point the Creationists in the direction of Carl Sagan. It'll just save me, and the other Skeptics a lot of time repeating everything he did and said. I thankyou. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 Who created time itself? That is a poorly phrased question. How about "what created time?" or "How did time begin?" I guess like everyone we look for the answers, but I'm not Aristotle and this isn't Plato's Academy - so I think we're unlikely to come up with the final answers here. Looking for answers is great. The trouble is that some people make answers up like some kind of pacifier to help them get through the day. At the end of the day we either have a good idea about the origins of the cosmos or we don't. If we don't, then the answer is "we don't know, let's see if we can find out" or "I don't know and I don't care". It should never be "I don't know so I 'm going to make :censored: up". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) You don't have "faith" in science Science is demonstrable. It works. It yields results. I do. Maybe your understanding of science is, ahem, less advanced than mine. There isn't a great deal that is demonstrable or yields working results when it comes to advanced quantum theory. Or any other advanced, leading edge level of theoretical science. I have faith that those theories represent the very forefront of human thought, and that at least some of them are an accurate representation of a world we cannot, possibly ever, see. People talk about science as if it is a matter of fact. It isn't. It's a matter of opinion, always has been, always will be. Edited May 21, 2010 by garcon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 At the end of the day we either have a good idea about the origins of the cosmos or we don't. If we don't, then the answer is "we don't know, let's see if we can find out" or "I don't know and I don't care". It should never be "I don't know so I 'm going to make :censored: up". And that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how scientists reach the theories they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 People talk about science as if it is a matter of fact. It isn't. It's a matter of opinion, always has been, always will be. That is correct. Evolution - the idea that life changes over time sometimes resulting in speculation and the idea that all life currently in existence today arose from a common ancestor, is an established scientific fact. The evidence for this is overwhelming, resulting in a robust consensus of scientific opinion. In addition, there is no alternative theory compatible with all the available evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 I do. Maybe your understanding of science is, ahem, less advanced than mine. There isn't a great deal that is demonstrable or yields working results when it comes to advanced quantum theory. Or any other advanced, leading edge level of theoretical science. I have faith that those theories represent the very forefront of human thought, and that at least some of them are an accurate representation of a world we cannot, possibly ever, see. People talk about science as if it is a matter of fact. It isn't. It's a matter of opinion, always has been, always will be. As I know nothing about quantum physics, I cannot claim a belief in it. I can only say "I believe that the expert say this.......". Certain aspects of science can be described as factual (ie evolution, gravity, laws of motion etc etc) this is because of the evidence that supports these fields. Others less so because they do not have the same level of evidence. When I say that you do not have faith in science. I am talking about the scientific process. This scientific process has always demonstrably led mankind closer to the truth (ie describing reality) than anything else we have come up with. Ergo, we do not need faith in science as a process, because it has been demonstrated to work time and time again. If it didn't, most of the things you enjoy in your life (and take for granted) would not be there for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 And that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how scientists reach the theories they do. Sorry. I missed your point here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 Can I point the Creationists in the direction of Carl Sagan. It'll just save me, and the other Skeptics a lot of time repeating everything he did and said. I thankyou. "Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe" Cool. Seems to be similar to: "Your idea of who created the creator, is the same argument that I would use to bring about the idea of a creator/a primary mover. There either has to be an initial point of creation or time would need to be infinitely going backwards with creator after creator. Even if you think the latter possible, then you have to consider time. Who created time itself? Off that concept (i.e. someone created time), there is no before that creator. There is just him/it being." See. Even an idiot can come up with this :censored:. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilStarbucksSilkySkills Posted May 21, 2010 Author Share Posted May 21, 2010 "Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe" Cool. Seems to be similar to: "Your idea of who created the creator, is the same argument that I would use to bring about the idea of a creator/a primary mover. There either has to be an initial point of creation or time would need to be infinitely going backwards with creator after creator. Even if you think the latter possible, then you have to consider time. Who created time itself? Off that concept (i.e. someone created time), there is no before that creator. There is just him/it being." See. Even an idiot can come up with this :censored:. He actually means read his books. Such as "The Demon Haunted World". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 I'm not religious, although I went to a Catholic school. I just don't bother with any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Buddism. I just don't care about any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 I'm not religious, although I went to a Catholic school. I just don't bother with any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Buddism. I just don't care about any of them. OK...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Ronnie Moore Posted May 22, 2010 Share Posted May 22, 2010 OK...? Just addin my two cents to the thread innit, I ain't any religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.