onetrack:


The quote says that it may be dismissed without evidence, not that it should be or must be. Many of the great discoveries came from wild hypotheses which later had to be proved. The problem is that many theist say that their god exists and that their religion is true. I cannot disprove the existence of their god(s) but religion being divine can be easily disproved.

Evolution is absolutely not based on assumption, but on very careful and testable evidence.

You can't disprove it divinity without first disproving God's existence m for the former proceeds from the later.
Testable evidence of evolution? Please share. I'm eager to learn.

DeSepiero:


Its okay. An Evolutionary Biologist would provide a satisfactory answer maybe. For now, i study individual genes.

I ain't asking anyone to provide proof of Gods existence though.

But are you stylishly disagreeing with me that "your opinion may not be ultimate truth"? You are digressing.

No comment. Let's wait for an evolutionary biologist to join the thread.
Digressing? Remind me what the argument was!

[quote author=DeSepiero post=49860744][/quote]

That means I didn't digress. Just that you couldn't answer the question, thus prompting you to refer me to evolutionary biologist.

mank1234:


You can't disprove it divinity without first disproving God's existence m for the former proceeds from the later.
Testable evidence of evolution? Please share. I'm eager to learn.

Evolution: look at antibiotic resistance, breed of dogs, etc. Artificial selection works on the same principles and is testable.

Religion is not divine because of 1: errors and inconsistencies in all of them, and 2: the holy books are made of the same material as any other book. Using Occams Razor, I deduce that these books are also of human origin like any other book.

DoctorAlien:


So MRI scan is used to detect jealousy in human beings? Hhahhahahahha

If not already, it will be. fMRI is a pretty amazing tool. It can already be used to detect depression.

onetrack:


MRI scans as well as facial expressions, tone of voice etc.

Lol. I think we should reconvene tomorrow. Ideas are running out

onetrack:


Evolution: look at antibiotic resistance, breed of dogs, etc. Artificial selection works on the same principles and is testable.

Religion is not divine because of 1: errors and inconsistencies in all of them, and 2: the holy books are made of the same material as any other book. Using Occams Razor, I deduce that these books are also of human origin like any other book.

Breeds of dog doesn't mean evolution. No dog has every changed from being a dog into something else.

Maybe you're confusing the word variation with evolution.

mank1234:


That means I didn't digress. Just that you couldn't answer the question, thus prompting you to refer me to evolutionary biologist.

Then I take it that 'we both agree that our opinions on evolution don't automatically stand as ultimate truth'.

A belief doesn't necessarily stand as truth just because contrary belief is perceived as false.

With this above opinion of mine, I rest my case.

Gracias!

onetrack:


If not already, it will be. fMRI is a pretty amazing tool. It can already be used to detect depression.

Please fMRI does not detect jealousy in human beings. Stop embarrassing yourself.

onetrack:


Evolution: look at antibiotic resistance, breed of dogs, etc. Artificial selection works on the same principles and is testable.

Religion is not divine because of 1: errors and inconsistencies in all of them, and 2: the holy books are made of the same material as any other book. Using Occams Razor, I deduce that these books are also of human origin like any other book.

Why is your faith in Occam's Razor any better than any other faith?

Note that...

Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor[/url]

onetrack:


Evolution: look at antibiotic resistance, breed of dogs, etc. Artificial selection works on the same principles and is testable.

Religion is not divine because of 1: errors and inconsistencies in all of them, and 2: the holy books are made of the same material as any other book. Using Occams Razor, I deduce that these books are also of human origin like any other book.

Artificial selection is controlled to favour a predetermined and expected outcome. In natural selection, the first man to evolve would have been gone if you're to follow the evolutionary tree.

Come out clearly, let me understand you:
Are you saying that God exist but the respective religious books are not true? Or that there's no God at all?
If God does exist, which direction would lead us to him since the books are wrong?
If God does not exist, then you don't need to talk about the respective books?

DeSepiero:


Then I take it that 'we both agree that our opinions on evolution don't automatically stand as ultimate truth'.

A belief doesn't necessarily stand as truth just because contrary belief is perceived as false.

With this above opinion of mine, I rest my case.

Gracias!

Ditto for God's existence, the respective religious books, and all we have labored to counter all day long: by your own submission.

mank1234:


Ditto for God's existence, the respective religious books, and all we have labored to counter all day long: by your own submission.

Ditto for ALL beliefs!

Occam's razor as a tool of argument is very flawed.

DoctorAlien:


Please fMRI does not detect jealousy in human beings. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I just realized that MRI could detect jealousy in humans. Thanks to onetrack.

check this out and tell me what you think.

http://metro.co.uk/2009/02/16/jealousy-spot-on-the-brain-identified-by-scientists-460744/

You should thank him too

Ontarget:
Some atheists became atheists because they read the Bible and spotted some loop holes in it. Most times they cite those biblical passages and mock christians with it. The Bible certainly contains things that doesn't add up, especially the account of creation. But that shouldn't be the ultimate reason which decides the existence or inexistence of a supreme being. When an atheist is challenged using the Bible he scores points, but when he is challenged using the physics and metaphysics of things in existence he struggles to prove their is no God.

If you are an atheist I would really like to know what makes you think it is possible for a complex and organized system to emerge on its own without guidance

Hello, on target;

Actually, most atheists DON'T become atheists only due to simply some contradictory bible verses and such. It might have been the quest to find the explaination to the verses that tickled their intrest ( and eventual disillusionment) towards religion; but it's definitely NOT the sole factor.

The disillusionment of a former religious member into irreligiosity (atheism) is a slow, revealing, life- changing process that occurs when the individual is willing; in all honesty and boldeness; to discard the crutch of faith, vodoos, supernaturals and Use only his Logical and unbiased faculties to examine religion(s).

So please, correct the misimpression that atheist 'just' became such due to only bible verses and the like.




As to the second part of your question; there have been (and are still) complex pattern emerging from entireley random chaos. Take crystals and sand dunes for example. The formations of dune and crystals is purely random, without "guidance" and yet; it's beautiful and complex.

Heck, the formation of the rings around saturn is not purposeful. Chaotic supernovae churn out stable, ordered planets and complex patterns disintegrate into chaos every day.


We live in an absurd universe.

DeSepiero:


I just realized that MRI could detect jealousy in humans. Thanks to onetrack.

check this out and tell me what you think.

http://metro.co.uk/2009/02/16/jealousy-spot-on-the-brain-identified-by-scientists-460744/

You should thank him too

Erm, they found a spot on the human brain they chose to call jealousy spot.

They then asked students to "speak" of a jealous rival. LOL.

So the scan is not for dumb people, eh?

What if I refuse to speak?

So if I bring my son for you to determine scientifically whether there is jealousy in him, you'll ask him to start speaking of a successful rival?

SirWere:
The disillusionment of a former religious member into irreligiosity (atheism) is a slow, revealing, life- changing process that occurs when the individual is willing; in all honesty and boldeness; to discard the crutch of faith, vodoos, supernaturals and Use only his Logical and unbiased faculties to examine religion(s).

Perhaps you will be able to answer my earlier question to plaetton "in all honesty and boldness, without the crutch of faith"..

sinequanon:


You are not honest, and you know it.

You are evading facts, and then claiming to be rational.

Explain how it is that the Nobel Prize has been awarded to Peter Higgs because "the existence of the Higgs Boson has been confirmed", when the black and white evidence shows that it has not been confirmed.

What you are is a cheerleader. A lot of scientists are cheerleaders, too. Numbers of supporting cheerleaders means nothing when it comes to facts.

DoctorAlien:


Erm, they found a spot on the human brain they chose to call jealousy spot.

They then asked students to "speak" of a jealous rival. LOL.

So the scan is not for dumb people, eh?

What if I refuse to speak?

So if I bring my son for you to determine scientifically whether there is jealousy in him, you'll ask him to start speaking of a successful rival?

My brother, don't fight this one.

Those questions you are throwing at me should be thrown to the scientists that carried out the study. The study was definitely reviewed by an editorial board of scholars (they are often skeptics: don't quote me on this ) prior to publication. By so doing they proved their point to the scientific community.

So just do me and yourself a favour by trying to research a little about MRI detecting jealousy. I did so and found the study.

Remember we agreed to accept new knowledge? this is me keeping to our promise.

Meanwhile, if you find contrary study in your little research, let me know

DeSepiero:




My brother, don't fight this one.

Those questions you are throwing at me should be thrown to the scientists that carried out the study. The study was definitely reviewed by an editorial board of scholars (they are often skeptics: don't quote me on this ) prior to publication. By so doing they proved their point to the scientific community.

So just do me and yourself a favour by trying to research a little about MRI detecting jealousy. I did so and found the study.

Remember we agreed to accept new knowledge? this is me keeping to our promise.

Meanwhile, if you find contrary study in your little research, let me know

But remember they were the ones that called that spot "jealousy" spot?

I'm sorry but their method of detecting jealousy is not scientific enough.

It's scientific when we bring an individual, assume he has no jealousy in him, then proceed to test.

Not asking them to speak of successful rivals.

DoctorAlien:


But remember they were the ones that called that spot "jealousy" spot?

I'm sorry but their method of detecting jealousy is not scientific enough.

It's scientific when we bring an individual, assume he has no jealousy in him, then proceed to test.

Not asking them to speak of successful rivals.

I understand you. But I believe their method was considered novel back then in 2004 or thereabout when it was conducted.

Importantly also, it was considered 'contribution to knowledge' that's why it was accepted for publication in the first place (if you were a scholar that publishes journal articles, you would understand this. As a scholar, I do).

There could be newer studies building on their existing knowledge with better approaches. You can check if you care.

DeSepiero:


I understand you. But I believe their method was considered novel back then in 2004 or thereabout when it was conducted.

Importantly also, it was considered 'contribution to knowledge' that's why it was accepted for publication in the first place (if you were a scholar that publishes journal articles, you would understand this. As a scholar, I do).

There could be newer studies building on their existing knowledge with better approaches. You can check if you care.

Until the day they I can submit myself to them and then they conduct a scientific test on me to see if there is jealousy in me.

sinequanon:


Perhaps you will be able to answer my earlier question to plaetton "in all honesty and boldness, without the crutch of faith"..

What do you mean??

The higgs boson particle was proven BEFORE they were awarded the nobel.

They only gave them because they had the foresight (and genius) to predict 40 YEARS before!!

So............


I feel like I'm missing something here.

DoctorAlien:


Until the day they I can submit myself to them and then they conduct a scientific test on me to see if there is jealousy in me.

I've kept my promise anyway.

Have fun bro

mank1234:


Artificial selection is controlled to favour a predetermined and expected outcome. In natural selection, the first man to evolve would have been gone if you're to follow the evolutionary tree.

Come out clearly, let me understand you:
Are you saying that God exist but the respective religious books are not true? Or that there's no God at all?
If God does exist, which direction would lead us to him since the books are wrong?
If God does not exist, then you don't need to talk about the respective books?

If they have followed scientific principles, then the study should not be done with a particular outcome in mind. Researcher bias is always a possibility however.

I am agnostic with regard to the existence of any god. I lack belief in any god, however.
And religious books were written by men, and I believe there is strong evidence for this.

sinequanon:


Why is your faith in Occam's Razor any better than any other faith?

Note that...

Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor[/url]

I do not have faith in Occam's Razor, because it can be wrong, as any heuristic can be. However, lacking any other satisfactory explanation, using Occam's razor is the best we can do.

SirWere:


What do you mean??

The higgs boson particle was proven BEFORE they were awarded the nobel.

They only gave them because they had the foresight (and genius) to predict 40 YEARS before!!

So............


I feel like I'm missing something here.

Lol.
So you noticed too that something is missing here ?

DoctorAlien:


Breeds of dog doesn't mean evolution. No dog has every changed from being a dog into something else.

This would take many generations and hence a lot of time; this is why it has not been done with dogs (yet), but it shows how artificial selection can create new traits. However if you do some research you will find that scientists have created new species from less complex forms of life.

onetrack:


I do not have faith in Occam's Razor, because it can be wrong, as any heuristic can be. However, lacking any other satisfactory explanation, using Occam's razor is the best we can do.

What proof do you have that it is the best "we" can do? (whoever "we" is)

onetrack:


This would take many generations and hence a lot of time; this is why it has not been done with dogs (yet), but it shows how artificial selection can create new traits. However if you do some research you will find that scientists have created new species from less complex forms of life.

Show me a clear example of an individual of a species turn into an individual of another species.

sinequanon:


What proof do you have that it is the best "we" can do? (whoever "we" is)

Well if you are willing to accept any explanation for any phenomenon then you are going to have quite a list of possible explanations for everything. Occam's Razor at least permits one to narrow down the possibilities in a way that makes sense, even if it can be wrong from time to time. "We" refers to people who work in the field of research/education.

Is there a better way? Apart from algorithms which may not be feasible...

SirWere:


What do you mean??

The higgs boson particle was proven BEFORE they were awarded the nobel.

They only gave them because they had the foresight (and genius) to predict 40 YEARS before!!

So............


I feel like I'm missing something here.

You are wrong. The Higgs Boson is not proven.

Read the article (and ignore plaetton, who is a load of pretence).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Spin: Spin-0 tentatively confirmed.

Parity: Even parity tentatively confirmed.

Decay: observed; but not "yet" confirmed.

Couplings to mass: "strongly evidenced" ("At 95% confidence level cV is within 15% of the standard model value cV=1"wink.

Higher energy results remain "consistent".

So, when we look at the small print for the "confirmation" of the "Higgs Boson", we see wishy-washy double speak. Confirmation in particle physics is supposed to have a very precise definition -- statistical confidence to a level of what is known as 5 sigma, or above. Instead, we have evasive claims of "tentative confirmation", and "strongly evidence", "not yet confirmed", which are just euphemisms for unconfirmed. It's a bit like saying that a woman is "a bit pregnant".

3 years after announcing the confirmation, it is NOT confirmed.