Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[gnostic]

then it's unfalsifiable and hence unscientific.

Evolution is falsifiable and scientific, because the empirical evidences support evolution more than disproving it.

If hundreds or thousands of scientific evidences were to debunk evolution tomorrow, then you will have a case against evolution, but that hasn't happen since Darwin's had introduced Natural Selection to the world in 1869.

Darwin might not have been right about everything that relate to the whole evolution, but he was right on the more important parts that he was able to observe and understand, during the technology that was current for his time. Darwin may have written about Natural Selection, but he wasn't the last to contribute to Natural Selection, because the theory on Natural Selection have been updated during the 20th century, including new evolutionary mechanics, like mutation, gave the world even better understanding of Natural Selection.

Take another new mechanism to evolution - Gene Flow - for instance. Changes happen without outside (environmental) forces affecting the population. Outside forces as in change in environment, like climate, terrain or availability of resources (like food, water and shelter), which Natural Selection is all about.

With Gene Flow change occurred with genes or allele with of members migrating into or out of the population. This is different to Natural Selection, because it no longer about the environmental factors affecting changes to population's genes or allele.

Both mechanisms are possible, and cover the bases for different conditions that affect changes. My point is that Natural Selection is still very valid today.

There are two other mechanisms that I haven't mentioned, largely because I know less about them.

Evolution is falsifiable. It is just that it done venture into the world of supernatural, which is what the bible and other scriptures do.

 

[JerryL]

sub atomic particles were a big nail in the coffin for classical physics, they didn't obey the laws, modeling the laws did not match observed reality- that's not really controversial today.

The models match observed reality just fine.

What we discovered (and this is true with relativity and large/fast objects like Mercury long before it's true with quanta) is the limits of that model.

Newton got men to the moon, and he got voyager into inter-stellar space... the model, like many, was fundamentally correct though incomplete.

similarly the attractively simple superficial laws of evolution don't match the observed reality, they also tend towards the simplest homogenous state just as matter under classical physics.

That's simply a false claim.

 

[Muffled]

Sure it is not only ones.

Mythology may also encompassed the following, below:

1. fable (story that has meaning of morals, and usually include animals that can talk, like Eden's serpent, or the talking snake and eagle in the Old Babylonian Epic of Etana),and fable are like parables, are allegory;
   
2. or story of cultural hero (like Heracles who supposedly found the Olympic games, and "cultural" that could be of religious nature, like Moses, establishing religious practices, customs, law, etc);
3. or of national hero (like the biblical Abraham, Jacob, Moses and David, or Aeneas and Romulus whom founded Rome);
   
4. or myth that are made like they were "historical", like the examples I have given in point 3. This myth is called "euhemerism".
5. or myth of object or place, which are personification of god, spirit, demon or even fairy, (like the sun, moon, river, sea were respective personifications of Helios, Selene, Scamander (river god of Troy) and Pontus);
6. name places, there are plenty of places in which there are myths of where the names of cities, towns, rivers, wells, etc, came from.

Both myths of cultural heroes or national heroes fall under the category of "foundation myth" or "hero myth".

And of course, there are the usual stories of god or gods, and creation (hence creation myth).

Unlike most stories, myths have dynamicism, in which can affect changes to older story. Different times, places, different authors, can cause myth to change. Story can change and have changed. Characters can change and have changed.




And that doesn't help me or convince me that the story of Eden to be more than just myth or fable.

Shape-shifting fall in the realm of the supernatural, folklore or myth.

There are no evidences for shape-shifting, because it is either superstition or just wild imagination.

People here, may think that I hate the bible, especially the stories in Genesis, because I often use them to demonstrate that they (stories) are myths than history, but this is not wholly true.

If anything, the Genesis is my favourite book out of the entire bible. The Genesis is a brilliant piece of storytelling, despite some of its inconsistencies and it being illogical, unscientific or pseudo-historical. That doesn't matter.

The Genesis creation, flood and the tower of babel, shouldn't be taken literally true, as if it was "historical" or "scientific". The values of Genesis come from not literalism, but from moral meanings found in the story.

But of course, I am more interested in the storytelling.

I believe you tell a nice long story but you can't back any of it up with fact.

I believe the Bible to be inspired by God so it doesn't fit in the realm of myth. God knows what happened and when, so his reports are factual and historical. The Bible sometimes contains stories for instance the parables of Jesus ar definitely fictional stories.

 

[Muffled]

What are you saying?

That evolution is not biology?

That reproduction and inheriting specific traits from parents or ancestors don't happen?

Can you be more specific and clarify why you think evidences for evolution can be ignored?

I am saying that scientisits propose links between individuals without any proof that such links exist. I call that jumping to conclusions.

I believe with the ability to do DNA testing evolutionary theories are evolving to explain the results but I am not convinced. so my answer is that DNA is biology and evolution can be a theory about that biology.

I believe of course it happens. Every person born has diffeent genes from the parents but also shares genes with the parents and sometimes with antecedents. Does anyone know how that happens? Is it all due to recessive genes?

I don't believe I ever said it should be ignored. Theories have their place until we know more. For instance people theorized that the world was flat but that theory was dropped when the world was proved round.

 

[gnostic]

For instance people theorized that the world was flat but that theory was dropped when the world was proved round.

That was never a "scientific theory", muffled.

Scientific theory required E-M-P-I-R-I-C-A-L E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E-S. Evidences, evidences, EVIDENCES.

How many times that we have to explain to you about scientific evidences into that head of yours, before you get it.

The whole claim about the world being flat and falling of the edge, is just plain ignorance and superstition, that was never "scientific".

Any fool could make outrageous claim, but what they claim don't make it scientific, unless you have the EVIDENCES to back it up.

If I keep emphasising EVIDENCES to you is because you keep bl@@dy ignoring it, again and again. You do know that willful ignorance is not a wonderful trait?

There is abundant of evidences for evolution, which include natural selection, mutation and gene flow. That you continue to ignore them, because of your religion (creationism) you believe in, only just stump me with your ignorance and dishonesty.

Let me paint the following pictures for you:

1. Evolution is biology.
2. Evolution is not cosmology. Meaning, evolution is not about the start of the universe.
3. Evolution is not about the origin of FIRST LIFE. If you talk about bl@@dy first life, then look up bl@@dy ABIOGENESIS.
4. The bl@@dy bible is not a fri##ng biology textbook.
5. Creationism is not science. It is a myth, based on superstitious belief.

 

[metis]

I believe the Bible to be inspired by God so it doesn't fit in the realm of myth.

Actually it does. The word "myth", as used in a religious context, means a narrative whereas the main point of it being there is to teach morals and values. By viewing these narratives as such, the focus is on those morals and values, and much less on whether the narrative is historically accurate. A "myth", therefore, can be historically accurate, but it's not really that that's most important.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In terms of the OP I would suggest that anyone with doubts about evolution should spend some time learning about the basic principles of evolution. These aren't that difficult to grasp, but without them you will struggle with the detail. Once you have done that you will be in a much better position to decide whether evolution is credible, and also whether religious alternatives like intelligent design are in fact any more convincing.

 

[Midnight Rain]

the acceptance is about 20% in the US according to Gallup, in a country where most people are brain.. I mean 'taught' evolution as fact. So apparently the evidence is not all that overwhelming.

Actually the incredible force of American Christian Fundamentalism is an incredibly overwhelming force. How can a kid who gets the basics of the basics of evolution, usually never even taught human evolution or the tracks of evolution, that then goes home to parents that do not believe in evolution, go to church where they are brainwashed from the time before they can talk that god is the most important thing in the world and you don't need evidence of that to believe it.

How then, can you assume that it is a lack of evidence? If you have researched it yourself I find this hard to believe.

I was one of those students ,

With minds at an impressionable age + the peer pressure of a class room and necessity of passing exams, it takes an extraordinarily individual mind to go against the grain. I didn't question it until I looked into it in more detail myself.

Similarly not many students questioned classical physics and static universes when and where those were taught as fact- concepts of specific creation events and fundamentally unpredictable nature were unscientific religious ideas with no place in a science class.

Classical physics was based on 'overwhelming evidence' - so overwhelming it was considered 'immutable law'. Yet as an explanation for the physical world around us, it turned out to be fundamentally and fatally flawed. So too I think with evolution.
No theory is beyond questioning, that is the fundamentally unscientific approach

You can question the theory all day long. However the basis of that questioning should be to find the truth and facts behind it rather than to somehow tear down a theory. If it tears town the theory then it was false. If it is reinforced time and time again then it usually means that it is incredibly accurate.

What are some arguments against evolution that you have come across by the way? I have seen hundreds so far and all have been based off of misinformation. I would just like to hear a few. If you can think of 5 really strong arguments against evolution we should take a crack at them.

 

[gnostic]

In terms of the OP I would suggest that anyone with doubts about evolution should spend some time learning about the basic principles of evolution. These aren't that difficult to grasp, but without them you will struggle with the detail. Once you have done that you will be in a much better position to decide whether evolution is credible, and also whether religious alternatives like intelligent design are in fact any more convincing.

Agreed.

Since most people are not biologists, then I think learning the just basic about evolution will be the most helpful to those who don't know what evolution is all about.

Heck, I am no expert in evolution, so biology was never my forte. Because I went on to do civil engineering after high school, and computer science later in life, physics - and to lesser extent, chemistry - were the main basics that I had to learn. But I have tried to get some basic understanding on evolution, in my own time. I didn't learn evolution in high school biology; I just didn't get that far.

I find the main problems with creationists is they have misconstrued, because some church teachings have misrepresented and distorted evolution. The church, in whatever sects, don't have the capacity to teach any science whatsoever, let alone biology and physical cosmology, and yet many creationists are fooled by these so-called teachers.

 

[Shantanu]

Can you give me an observable evidence of a change of kinds. Something that I don't have to receive by faith.

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence" Richard Dawkins.

Are you looking different to your parents and suffer from different conditions and have different abilities?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's been known for decades now that mega-matter and sub-atomic particles operate under different "rules". They actually do probably "obey the laws" but not the laws that mega-matter operate by. It's almost like going from one country to another and seeing that some of the laws are different.



Much like the varying laws between mega-matter and sub-atomic particles, the evolutionary process is quite complex, but this has been known for many decades now. If you buy a copy of Scientific American, hardly one issue will go by before it reporting some relatively new information about genetics and how it affects the evolutionary process.

There's no indication of any "homogenous state", unless you're using the terminology different than I'm interpreting it. If anything, on-going evidence suggests wide diversity and complex interactions at different levels dealing with the evolutionary process. As Gandhi used to say, the truth is rarely simple.

I take your point there. to use your analogy though-the old laws were considered 'international'- and 'unbreakable' right?.. by the inherent design of the universe and 'overwhelming evidence'. quantum physics didn't just add new laws, it fundamentally broke the old ones.

Similarly with evolution, I agree with Ghandi, evolution and classical physics are both too simple, that's their strength and their downfall.

more 'complex interactions at different levels' are needed just as with classical physics, not merely the simple laws of random mutation and natural selection as is often suggested. Those lead to one very simple successful blob of replicators, not sentient life pondering it's own existence...

Otherwise we could just feed that simple algorithm into a computer program and wait for it to introduce itself

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But Newton's theory on gravity and motion still have not being completely refuted for forces and motions of normal-size and slow-moving objects.

And quantum mechanics don't play well with gravity at astronomical levels, like stars and galaxies, where general relativity play a larger role, especially as these astronomical objects, move closer to the speed of light.

right, at both ends of the spectrum, classical physics breaks down. Observing atoms and orbits of planets showed that the simple and once 'immutable' laws of physics were just too simple to account for reality- so too I think with evolution.

And here, you are completely wrong.

There is nothing superficial with the theory on evolution. Our knowledge and the evidences that support to biological evolution are far more complete than that of (physics) mechanics on forces and motion.

Are you a biologist by profession or education? If not, than how are you more certain what they know about biology?

So they said about classical physics. And it reigned supreme longer than evolution has. It also had far more direct, observable, repeatable, empirical evidence everywhere you looked. Observations that didn't fit the model were assumed to be bad observations by definition, anomalies, quirks, arguments from the gaps etc etc.

Are you a biologist by profession or education? If not, than how are you more certain what they know about biology?

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts right? Nobody else is qualified to question their conclusions..

 

[metis]

I take your point there. to use your analogy though-the old laws were considered 'international'- and 'unbreakable' right?.. by the inherent design of the universe and 'overwhelming evidence'. quantum physics didn't just add new laws, it fundamentally broke the old ones.

Overstated. The provisions of "the laws of physics" has had tremendous scrutiny and study for centuries, and it was quite well established early on that there was far more that we didn't know than we did know. Yes, quantum mechanics caught most physicists and other scientists by surprise, but this is not at all unusual in the history of physics. When Einstein came our with his theories of relativity, these were shockers as well. This is the nature of science, not only with physics, but also biology and the other sciences.

Similarly with evolution, I agree with Ghandi, evolution and classical physics are both too simple, that's their strength and their downfall.

more 'complex interactions at different levels' are needed just as with classical physics, not merely the simple laws of random mutation and natural selection as is often suggested. Those lead to one very simple successful blob of replicators, not sentient life pondering it's own existence...

Otherwise we could just feed that simple algorithm into a computer program and wait for it to introduce itself

Anyone who thought that the ToE was easy or simple certainly wasn't much of a scientist, and I doubt very few thought of it in that manner. It's highly complex, which is why you can hardly go through a single copy of Scientific American without seeing at least one article dealing with at least one new revelation.

However, that should not confuse anyone into believing that we don't understand most of the general process. Much like modern medicine, there are new discoveries being made all the time, but this shouldn't be confused with the idea that we don;t know anything about modern medicine or the ToE.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Overstated. The provisions of "the laws of physics" has had tremendous scrutiny and study for centuries, and it was quite well established early on that there was far more that we didn't know than we did know. Yes, quantum mechanics caught most physicists and other scientists by surprise, but this is not at all unusual in the history of physics. When Einstein came our with his theories of relativity, these were shockers as well. This is the nature of science, not only with physics, but also biology and the other sciences.



Anyone who thought that the ToE was easy or simple certainly wasn't much of a scientist, and I doubt very few thought of it in that manner. It's highly complex, which is why you can hardly go through a single copy of Scientific American without seeing at least one article dealing with at least one new revelation.

However, that should not confuse anyone into believing that we don't understand most of the general process. Much like modern medicine, there are new discoveries being made all the time, but this shouldn't be confused with the idea that we don;t know anything about modern medicine or the ToE.

Understated! the breaking of the Rayleigh-Jeans law was not labeled the ultraviolet shocker, but the ultraviolet catastrophe. This highlights the emotional resistance to poking holes in popular theories because of implications. As discussed before, the religious implications of vastly more complex finely tuned physical laws, were greatly amplified for the Big Bang, and are greatly multiplied again for evolution.

You don't have to look very hard in these threads to find atheists insisting that evolution is 'very simple' and anyone who doesn't understand it is 'stupid'/'brainwashed' etc etc

just as was claimed for the well understood 'general processes' involved in geocentric solar systems, classical physics, steady state, and global warming, 'unquestionable assumptions' are always a scientific red flag, especially where religious/political implications apply.

'that should not confuse anyone into believing that we don't understand most of the general process'

the whole point being- the devil IS in the details,

without fully understanding what supports/drives/guides the general process. an assumption based on superficial observation of the 'general process' can and often does turn out to be fundamentally false

 

[jonathan180iq]

Plenty of evidence of evolution here

 

[metis]

Understated! the breaking of the Rayleigh-Jeans law was not labeled the ultraviolet shocker, but the ultraviolet catastrophe. This highlights the emotional resistance to poking holes in popular theories because of implications.

The issue of "shocker" is relative to whom is being shocked.

As discussed before, the religious implications of vastly more complex finely tuned physical laws, were greatly amplified for the Big Bang, and are greatly multiplied again for evolution.

"Religious implications" only applies to those who have religious inclinations. Since it has proven impossible to find objective evidence for a God or Gods, such beliefs simply cannot be put in terms of scientific axioms, theories, or even hypotheses. Therefore, if one tries to put religion into this arena, they have left science. However, this does not mean nor imply that there is/are no God/Gods.

You don't have to look very hard in these threads to find atheists insisting that evolution is 'very simple' and anyone who doesn't understand it is 'stupid'/'brainwashed' etc etc

The basic actually is so simple that common sense alone should tell anyone that the evolutionary process is realistic. For example, our experience is that all material things seem to change over time-- thus "evolution". In my basic anthropology course, the basic definition I used was "genetic changes over time whereas new species may emerge". That's pretty basic, testable, and has been observed.

just as was claimed for the well understood 'general processes' involved in geocentric solar systems, classical physics, steady state, and global warming, 'unquestionable assumptions' are always a scientific red flag, especially where religious/political implications apply.

No scientist should ever state that any axiom is "unquestionable", and I have never run across a single scientist who has said as such over all my years of being in the field.

the whole point being- the devil IS in the details,
without fully understanding what supports/drives/guides the general process. an assumption based on superficial observation of the 'general process' can and often does turn out to be fundamentally false

Any scientist who doesn't allow questions of either isn't much of a scientist. Yes, we all tend to have our pet hypotheses, but science is full of examples whereas what's taken as probable is discarded when it become clear that it's wrong.

But does the same happen with religion? Generally speaking, no. Most religious concepts are "unfalsifiable". For example, of I say that the universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, that all the planets are his spit-wads, the stars were spit-wads ignited by his breath, and stellar explosions are caused by his farts, show me any evidence whatsoever that indicates this is wrong.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Religious implications" only applies to those who have religious inclinations.

Absolutely not, remember Hoyle v Lemaitre- quite the opposite applies, atheists rejected the BB for what THEY complained of as theistic implications, static universes fit their atheistic belief much better. Lemaitre went out of his way to separate his faith from the theory, because he could. i.e. implications are much more of a bias for those who do not acknowledge their own beliefs

The basic actually is so simple that common sense alone should tell anyone that the evolutionary process is realistic. For example, our experience is that all material things seem to change over time-- thus "evolution". In my basic anthropology course, the basic definition I used was "genetic changes over time whereas new species may emerge". That's pretty basic, testable, and has been observed.

all material things seem to change over time, thus entropy, decay, simplification, homogenization -- unless a mechanism specifically operates to overcome it, like creative intelligence. automobiles seem to change over time and can be placed on the exact same tree of life

No scientist should ever state that any axiom is "unquestionable", and I have never run across a single scientist who has said as such over all my years of being in the field.

' “Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...' (Dawkins) doesn't get much more dogmatic than that does it?

science is full of examples whereas what's taken as probable is discarded when it become clear that it's wrong.

I agree entirely, Lemaitre was proven right, eventually. But Hoyle never accepted it in his entire life because he'd have to admit the very theistic implications he complained of. Science corrects itself, atheism, scientists, institutions, not always

But does the same happen with religion? Generally speaking, no. Most religious concepts are "unfalsifiable". For example, of I say that the universe was created by the Cosmic Godzilla, that all the planets are his spit-wads, the stars were spit-wads ignited by his breath, and stellar explosions are caused by his farts, show me any evidence whatsoever that indicates this is wrong.

The basic premise of a creator God is entirely falsifiable , Godzilla or otherwise, simply show that the universe was uncreated- no creation = no creator, atheists have always tried to do this, it's just never held up to scientific scrutiny.

For a truly unfalsifiable speculation, try modern atheism- M theory, the flying spaghetti Multiverse etc. They are inherently beyond any falsification by design[/QUOTE]

 

[metis]

Absolutely not, remember Hoyle v Lemaitre- quite the opposite applies, atheists rejected the BB for what THEY complained of as theistic implications, static universes fit their atheistic belief much better. Lemaitre went out of his way to separate his faith from the theory, because he could. i.e. implications are much more of a bias for those who do not acknowledge their own beliefs

All sorts of scientists have all sorts of opinions on just about anything and everything, so citing Hoyle and Lemaitre is only being put forth by you because you happen to agree with them. If one thinks those two deities, then I guess that ends the discussion, but most of us really don't think so.

all material things seem to change over time, thus entropy, decay, simplification, homogenization -- unless a mechanism specifically operates to overcome it, like creative intelligence. automobiles seem to change over time and can be placed on the exact same tree of life

If this were to be so logical, then why is it that the vast majority of cosmologists and physicists are atheists or agnostics (more the latter in a survey I've seen)? Even those that are theists tend to not believe in what one could call "conventional religions", and I'm one of them as an anthropologist. And most scientists do grow up in theistically-inclined households, btw.

' “Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...' (Dawkins) doesn't get much more dogmatic than that does it?

The basic ToE is indeed a fact and has been well established, so Dawkins is clearly correct. It's the details that often are conjectural.

I agree entirely, Lemaitre was proven right, eventually. But Hoyle never accepted it in his entire life because he'd have to admit the very theistic implications he complained of. Science corrects itself, atheism, scientists, institutions, not always

Lemaitre was never "proven right" on the issue of theistic causation because it has been shown to be virtually impossible to provide objective evidence for a God or Gods.

The basic premise of a creator God is entirely falsifiable , Godzilla or otherwise, simply show that the universe was uncreated- no creation = no creator, atheists have always tried to do this, it's just never held up to scientific scrutiny.

The creator-God simply is not at all falsifiable. Logically, how could anyone prove there's no deity anywhere in the universe? I love to travel, but certainly I could never make the claim that I've been all over the universe. And how could anyone go about somehow proving there's only one deity?

For a truly unfalsifiable speculation, try modern atheism- M theory, the flying spaghetti Multiverse etc. They are inherently beyond any falsification by design

I find it bizarre that one so readily accepts a specific theistic approach but then rejects the ToE. That literally is so illogical, and in so many different ways.

Again, to repeat, what I am not saying is that there are no God or Gods, just that we simply do not have objectively-derived evidence of any, and that's actually quite obvious. Even most theologians that I have read pretty much admit that if one believes in God that they do so on the basis of faith and not empirical evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All sorts of scientists have all sorts of opinions on just about anything and everything, so citing Hoyle and Lemaitre is only being put forth by you because you happen to agree with them. If one thinks those two deities, then I guess that ends the discussion, but most of us really don't think so.

pretty much the biggest scientific question of all time, and definitively answered, not exactly an obscure example

If this were to be so logical, then why is it that the vast majority of cosmologists and physicists are atheists or agnostics (more the latter in a survey I've seen)? Even those that are theists tend to not believe in what one could call "conventional religions", and I'm one of them as an anthropologist. And most scientists do grow up in theistically-inclined households, btw.

majority I'm sure are atheists, the most successful, Lemaitre, Planck, Einstein were skeptics of atheism

There may be far more atheist pop scientists like Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss, Sagan, Tyson etc who have done very well in prizes, book sales, TV appearance, but their combined contribution to practical science falls behind the inventor of the Chip Clip, correct me if I'm wrong. quantity does not equal quality apparently

The basic ToE is indeed a fact and has been well established, so Dawkins is clearly correct. It's the details that often are conjectural.

Again, as was classical physics, and it was the 'details' that eventually exposed that the whole premise was flawed. But the point was that scientists often do declare their conjectures to be 'unquestionable' even after they are proven wrong in some cases. We all have beliefs, refusing to acknowledge them is where the problems always start

Lemaitre was never "proven right" on the issue of theistic causation because it has been shown to be virtually impossible to provide objective evidence for a God or Gods.

agreed he was proven right on his theory, that the universe did in fact begin in a specific creation event. it was the atheists who made it about their personal beliefs, again..

The creator-God simply is not at all falsifiable. Logically, how could anyone prove there's no deity anywhere in the universe? I love to travel, but certainly I could never make the claim that I've been all over the universe. And how could anyone go about somehow proving there's only one deity?

ask Hawking for one, it's an explicit atheist rationale that no creation= no creator , that's why static, eternal, cyclical models have always been the elusive holy grail of atheism- Hawking said his Big Crunch 'made God redundant' in his own words. (until it was also debunked). I agree with Lemaitre, it should be about the evidence, not the conclusion, if it happens to support God, so be it.

I find it bizarre that one so readily accepts a specific theistic approach but then rejects the ToE. That literally is so illogical, and in so many different ways.

It's a matter of perspective, nothing was more illogical to those on one side of the argument, than a beginning of time itself.

Again, to repeat, what I am not saying is that there are no God or Gods, just that we simply do not have objectively-derived evidence of any, and that's actually quite obvious. Even most theologians that I have read pretty much admit that if one believes in God that they do so on the basis of faith and not empirical evidence.

[/quote]

likewise for multiverses, M theory, or any accidental universe creating mechanism- The fact that they are all inherently beyond the possibility of evidence, doesn't make them impossible. I just think there are more rational explanations if we are pen to all possibilities. So without empirical evidence either way, we all have beliefs, faith, as long as we all acknowledge them as such, I think we can all get along

 

[gnostic]

100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts right? Nobody else is qualified to question their conclusions..

And yet no one WHO CLAIMED to be expert in the paranormal, whether it be ghosts or magic and everything that goes bump in the night, have produced a single shred of evidences, to what is term - PARANORMAL.

When are you going to get it, that if there are no verifiable evidences then any claim should be considered FALSE, regardless of whether is natural or supernatural.

Do you understand the whole question of falsifiability?

In science, falsifiability is that every statement and claim should be considered false and be able to proven false, UNLESS proven otherwise. If the statement or claim shown to be untestable, whether by evidences or by maths (like theoretical physics), then it cannot fall into the realm of science.

Spirits (that including ghosts, gods, angels, demons), creationism, miracles, heaven and hell, fairies, unicorns, alien abductions, etc, are untestable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.

Just because NO ONE CAN PROVE any of these claims mentioned above, DOESN'T MEAN IT IS TRUE.

Just because you (not you personally, but anyone in general) believe in spirit (whether it be god-kind or ghost-kind), and they can't be proven, doesn't mean it is "true" or "real".

Personal belief or faith doesn't mean anything other than that - PERSONAL.

And you are wrong, or only partially right. Some paranormal investigators do believe in the paranormal. But there are few of them who investigate the paranormal, are actually skeptics, who are out there, proving any claim to the paranormal or supernatural to be wrong, wild imagination or just plain dishonest (fraudulent claims).