If Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin Theory is wrong in its title already?

[gnostic]

The OP:

Oh, I forgot.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I forgot.

Well, you scared me a little. I thought I was posting in the wrong thread! It happens.

 

[gnostic]

Well, you scared me a little. I thought I was posting in the wrong thread! It happens.

Sometimes my memory is good, but at other times, I forget things.

 

[FearGod]

What about the theory of God did it?
Can any one show a significant evidence that God wasn't involved
from the point of nil to the existence of man?

 

[Ouroboros]

Sometimes my memory is good, but at other times, I forget things.

I have a great memory, but it's short...

 

[Ouroboros]

- No, google "Cosmology Crisis" then. The Theory of Evolution is defined as having the following sections: Theory of Big Bang+Theory of Cosmic Evolution+Theory of Darwin+Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is the application of Evolution to Socium.

One more thing, "socium"? Friend, ally, comrade? Evolution of your friend? Can you expand on that a little? Or is it the ancient Roman republic and it's evolution in the eyes of Darwin...??!? Please explain.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How pathetic. questfortruth has had the meaning of a scientific theory explained to him dozens of times, yet he CONSTANTLY starts the exact same OP over and over again. Truly sad.

Par for the creationist course. There are creationists in the world that are scientifically knowledgeable, but we don't find them on a forum like this. In my experience, they're always scientifically naive, yet willing to argue from ignorance with those scientifically enlightened.

Everything Darwin said and thought about evolution and everything that came since has been nothing but a bunch of hocus pocus bs.

Except that the theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

By contrast, its only alternative, creationism, can do none of that. It is a useless and sterile idea. Even if it were true, it remains a useless idea.

Why would anybody trade an idea that does so much for one that does so little? That's a rhetorical question. I already know that you have no good answer, and will likely not answer responsively if at all.

What about the theory of God did it?
Can any one show a significant evidence that God wasn't involved
from the point of nil to the existence of man?

That's a claim, not a theory, and it is insufficiently evidenced to believe for those who require evidence to believe. If creationists cannot demonstrate that a sentient agent created the universe and the life in it, there is no reason to take the claim seriously.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What about the theory of God did it?
Can any one show a significant evidence that God wasn't involved
from the point of nil to the existence of man?

First? You must demonstrate gods are actually possible. This has never been done.

Second? No.

Thirdly? No actual scientist claims "point of nil"-- you're thinking of the silly bible, with it's "the earth was void" bit. Even more ironically, the bible claims the earth was constructed *before* the sun around which it orbits was .... what?

 

[FearGod]

That's a claim, not a theory, and it is insufficiently evidenced to believe for those who require evidence to believe. If creationists cannot demonstrate that a sentient agent created the universe and the life in it, there is no reason to take the claim seriously.

What difference it makes if God did it or was the outcome of the unconscious nature?

 

[gnostic]

What about the theory of God did it?

It isn’t a theory, in the sense of being a “scientific theory”.

The concept of God being a creator this earth or of the universe as a whole - is purely faith-based.

In order for there to be evidence for “God did it”, there there must be evidence that god can be observed, be measured and be tested.

So can everyone (eg theists, atheists and agnostics, the fishermen, the plumbers, the accountants, your next door neighbor, etc) independently observe God? Yes? No?

If no, then strike one.

Please note, that observation don’t just mean be able to see. People can use devices to detect things that the human eye might not be able to directly observe. For instance, you cannot observe electricity through your electrical appliances, but electrician can use a multimeter to detect electricity, so you are using the multimeter to observe for you.

Can you or anyone else measure God?

Since you can’t observe God, then you wouldn’t be able to measure God...so strike 2.

Note, like my electricity example, you can use device like multimeter to measure the electric current, voltage or power through any electrical components of appliances.

Can you or anyone else test God?

Like question 2, if you or anyone cannot observe God in the first place, then you wouldn’t be able to test God. That’s strike 3. So the “God did it” is out.

You seemed to be missing the point of what scientific evidence is and what scientific theory is.

If you are going to include God into any explanation of yours, then God must be included in the test.

When a person making claim, then the claimant must be able to back his or her claim with evidence. So claiming God did it, then there must be evidence for God...otherwise, your claim is nothing more than faith-based belief or personal opinion. And that’s not how science work, FearGod.

Science relied on evidence, not faith, not belief.

 

[FearGod]

First? You must demonstrate gods are actually possible. This has never been done.

Second? No.

Thirdly? No actual scientist claims "point of nil"-- you're thinking of the silly bible, with it's "the earth was void" bit. Even more ironically, the bible claims the earth was constructed *before* the sun around which it orbits was .... what?

I didn't talk about the bible which I believe was distorted,
Why God is impossible? explain your point?

 

[FearGod]

It isn’t a theory, in the sense of being a “scientific theory”.

The concept of God being a creator this earth or of the universe as a whole - is purely faith-based.

In order for there to be evidence for “God did it”, there there must be evidence that god can be observed, be measured and be tested.

So can everyone (eg theists, atheists and agnostics, the fishermen, the plumbers, the accountants, your next door neighbor, etc) independently observe God? Yes? No?

If no, then strike one.

Please note, that observation don’t just mean be able to see. People can use devices to detect things that the human eye might not be able to directly observe. For instance, you cannot observe electricity through your electrical appliances, but electrician can use a multimeter to detect electricity, so you are using the multimeter to observe for you.

Can you or anyone else measure God?

Since you can’t observe God, then you wouldn’t be able to measure God...so strike 2.

Note, like my electricity example, you can use device like multimeter to measure the electric current, voltage or power through any electrical components of appliances.

Can you or anyone else test God?

Like question 2, if you or anyone cannot observe God in the first place, then you wouldn’t be able to test God. That’s strike 3. So the “God did it” is out.

You seemed to be missing the point of what scientific evidence is and what scientific theory is.

If you are going to include God into any explanation of yours, then God must be included in the test.

When a person making claim, then the claimant must be able to back his or her claim with evidence. So claiming God did it, then there must be evidence for God...otherwise, your claim is nothing more than faith-based belief or personal opinion. And that’s not how science work, FearGod.

Science relied on evidence, not faith, not belief.

Create life from the unconscious nature then the theory of God will end forever.
God says that life is made by him, so the challenge is very easy, let us create life from the non living matter and this will prove that God doesn't exist.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

So what about the theory of gravity, theory of radiation, theory of thermodynamics? They're theories, yet real, absolute, for sure, so definite that we consider them factual and beyond reproach.

Gravity is (supposedly, I dispute that what we call gravity is actually gravity) a law. So are the others. That's why they call them laws, because the average person is able to believe in them without further proof .

Newton's law of universal gravitation - Wikipedia
Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation - Wikipedia

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I didn't talk about the bible which I believe was distorted,.

Where else would you get the silly notion the universe was ever 'nil' at some point? That's very biblical. And not even a little scientific.

The correct scientific observation? Is that the big bang began with a something, not a nothing. It is meaningless to speak of "before" that, as time didn't exist yet.

So, scientifically speaking? "Unknown" is the correct answer. So far.

Why God is impossible? explain your point?

No, you have it backwards-- you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

It is up to you, to show that gods are possible. Until you do? By default, they are not.

That's kind of how it works. Your claim. Up to you to prove it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Create life from the unconscious nature then the theory of God will end forever..

Been There. Done That.

Every time you eat something that is dead? Or was never alive? You create life from it, inside your organs. No magic needed.

But wait! There is more! Scientists have, using a dead single-celled organism, one that had all it's DNA removed (hence: it's dead), and then? Using non-alive DNA, that was carefully built from raw materials using a gene sequencer, bring the dead cell back to life.

With 100% artificial, made-from-scratch DNA. The cell reproduced faithfully to the human-made DNA. It ate nutrients. It excreted waste. It made daughter cells.

"It's ALIVE!"

What now? I will await your inevitable excuses why this does not meet your demands above...

God says that life is made by him, so the challenge is very easy, let us create life from the non living matter and this will prove that God doesn't exist.

"God says".... you know this... HOW?

Be specific: how do you know that "God Says".... anything? Are you claiming god speaks directly to you, now?

 

[gnostic]

Create life from the unconscious nature then the theory of God will end forever.
God says that life is made by him, so the challenge is very easy, let us create life from the non living matter and this will prove that God doesn't exist.

Again, that's not how science work.

The scientist who write up the hypothesis, is the one who must be to ensure his or her hypothesis is falsifiable, therefore testable.

Failing to offer a falsifiable hypothesis is ground for disqualifying his or her concept/model/explanation to be pseudoscience.

Likewise, a creationist, or even a theist, who make a positive claim that God is the active agent of creation (eg of Earth, or of life), then the burden of proof falls upon the creationist claimant to show evidence that God exist.

You cannot shift the burden of proof to someone else, if YOU ARE THE WHO HAS MADE THE CLAIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And that's exactly what you are doing. This is why I don't trust any creationist to be honest with their claims.

To give you an example:

Let say there are 2 scientists, A & B, who both wrote hypothesis for such and such phenomena, and they are looking at the same phenomena, but A's hypothesis (let's say this hypothesis is called X) is very different from B's hypothesis (let's call this hypothesis Y).

Say scientist B have tested his hypothesis Y, and the evidence goes against his hypothesis. So here is my question to you, FearGod:

• Does failed Y, means hypothesis X is true by default?

The answer is "No!". Just because the experiments for Y hypothesis failed, doesn't mean the X hypothesis is true.

X hypothesis must also be tested too, and scientist A can only concluded to be true, if it all test results of experiments support hypothesis A.

My points in this example, is that each hypotheses, must be individually and INDEPENDENTLY TESTED, and it would succeed or fail on its own merits.

Do you understand what I am saying here, FearGod?

Just because one hypothesis failed in the experiment, it doesn't mean the other hypothesis is true.

Like what would happen if both hypotheses (both X & Y) failed in their respective (and independent) tests. If that happen, then they (scientists A & B) are both wrong.

In science, failure of one theory doesn't mean the other theory is right. Each theories must be tested regardless of each other's performance.

Since you are the one who is making the claim about God being the agent of creation, then you must first show that this agent exist. Hence, you need to back up your claim about God existing in reality.

 

[Valjean]

Create life from the unconscious nature then the theory of God will end forever.
God says that life is made by him, so the challenge is very easy, let us create life from the non living matter and this will prove that God doesn't exist.

Why would it do that? Just because we learn a mechanism it doesn't mean someone else doesn't have one, too.

Science has been finding natural causes and mechanisms for all sorts of things that were once held up as evidence of God. People still believe. They just keep moving the goal post.

 

[gnostic]

Well, you scared me a little. I thought I was posting in the wrong thread! It happens.

I've lost track of the conversation or past replies, especially with long threads.

 

[gnostic]

Gravity is (supposedly, I dispute that what we call gravity is actually gravity) a law.

Law is just a subset of the larger overall theory of gravity.

The law is merely a very small part of the theory, often a very short statement, often accompanied with a formula, equation or metric (or constant).

The theory of the gravity explained or should explain everything.

The current standard model of gravity, is the Theory of General Relativity. It doesn't completely replace Newton's theory on gravity, but Einstein does expand gravity theory to include astrophysics and spacetime.

You, Rinne, are some what out-of-date with physics.

 

[FearGod]

Again, that's not how science work.

The scientist who write up the hypothesis, is the one who must be to ensure his or her hypothesis is falsifiable, therefore testable.

Failing to offer a falsifiable hypothesis is ground for disqualifying his or her concept/model/explanation to be pseudoscience.

Likewise, a creationist, or even a theist, who make a positive claim that God is the active agent of creation (eg of Earth, or of life), then the burden of proof falls upon the creationist claimant to show evidence that God exist.

You cannot shift the burden of proof to someone else, if YOU ARE THE WHO HAS MADE THE CLAIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And that's exactly what you are doing. This is why I don't trust any creationist to be honest with their claims.

To give you an example:

Let say there are 2 scientists, A & B, who both wrote hypothesis for such and such phenomena, and they are looking at the same phenomena, but A's hypothesis (let's say this hypothesis is called X) is very different from B's hypothesis (let's call this hypothesis Y).

Say scientist B have tested his hypothesis Y, and the evidence goes against his hypothesis. So here is my question to you, FearGod:

• Does failed Y, means hypothesis X is true by default?

The answer is "No!". Just because the experiments for Y hypothesis failed, doesn't mean the X hypothesis is true.

X hypothesis must also be tested too, and scientist A can only concluded to be true, if it all test results of experiments support hypothesis A.

My points in this example, is that each hypotheses, must be individually and INDEPENDENTLY TESTED, and it would succeed or fail on its own merits.

Do you understand what I am saying here, FearGod?

Just because one hypothesis failed in the experiment, it doesn't mean the other hypothesis is true.

Like what would happen if both hypotheses (both X & Y) failed in their respective (and independent) tests. If that happen, then they (scientists A & B) are both wrong.

In science, failure of one theory doesn't mean the other theory is right. Each theories must be tested regardless of each other's performance.

Since you are the one who is making the claim about God being the agent of creation, then you must first show that this agent exist. Hence, you need to back up your claim about God existing in reality.

Not able to test for God doesn't mean God doesn't exist, for example
bacteria was always existing but we were able to prove it in the year 1670.

IOW if I can't prove to you that God exists doesn't mean that God doesn't
exist by default, but if you can prove that God really doesn't exist and that by creating life such us making babies in the lab, then this will prove that God isn't the creator since we can do what he did.