What is your belief in God? (No racism or flaming please)

[Slaeowulf]

Actually, I don't think either side has presented any evidence (besides peer reviewed text and theories).

 

Obvious troll is too obvious

[Hyydrah]

Some people say that there is no way that intelligent design exists, because we have no explanation as to why. Others say it has to exist, because we can't explain why anything else would happen. Either of those arguments are valid until science finds proof of one or the other. I say to Creationists (separate from those who only believe in intelligent design), however, that if you read the bible, and all you get out of it is that you need to go around trying to convince people that the universe is only 5,774 years old, you are missing the entire point.

 

"Do not unto your neighbor as you would not have them do unto you. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study."

--Rabbi Akivah, a long time ago

 

"Some people say that there is no way that intelligent design exists, because we have no explanation as to why."

 

     It's silly to say that there is absolutely no way that intelligent design exists simply because there is no explanation yet; however, in order to prove that intelligent design is true, sufficient evidence must be provided.

 

 

"Others say it has to exist, because we can't explain why anything else would happen."

 

     Again, another silly argument. One could use the argument that the flying spaghetti monster had to have been the cause of their CPU being fried since they can't think of any other reason.

 

 

These arguments are not valid, and science does not need to "find proof of one or the other" for them to prove their invalidity; only logic does.

[pcexplosion]

What are those beliefs? (if you don't mind saying)

Would like to see what you mean by mixed.

Like believing in god and then looking at the real world.

[SMURG]

Actually, I don't think either side has presented any evidence (besides peer reviewed text and theories).

Peer reviewed papers don't constitute evidence anymore? Well gee.

Granted I only personally presented anecdotal evidence but you really beat me to the punch with the peer review thing. I guess something can't be true even if people all around the world are able to reliably reproduce the same results which explicitly point towards one possibility - in this case that life adapts to its surroundings.

Unless the bible says it too ofc.

[TheMissxu]

Obvious troll is too obvious

Are you calling me a name?

Graham's Hierarchy... Please elaborate on what evidence anyone has presented.

[CornOnJacob]

(Replying to Rabbi Akivah's quote, not CornOnJacob directly)

 

 

"Some people say that there is no way that intelligent design exists, because we have no explanation as to why."

 

     It's silly to say that there is absolutely no way that intelligent design exists simply because there is no explanation yet; however, in order to prove that intelligent design is true, sufficient evidence must be provided.

 

 

"Others say it has to exist, because we can't explain why anything else would happen."

 

     Again, another silly argument. One could use the argument that the flying spaghetti monster had to have been the cause of your CPU being fried since they can't think of any other reason.

 

 

These arguments are not valid, and science does not need to "find proof of one or the other" for them to prove their invalidity; only logic does.

I know that those arguments are not really valid, but I did not want to get into a fight with anyone over the specifics. Those are just two basic ideas that seem to have a lot of believers on the internet.

 

Also, the quote was only the last sentence, so I assumed the rest was directed at me (somewhat)

[pcexplosion]

Thank you for putting that in a diplomatic way

 

Unfortunately, my approach is a bit more:

 

That's not how it would work you can just get your leg regenerated,you pray for a new leg like a prosthetic one if you cant afford one.

[Lyons]

Peer reviewed papers don't constitute evidence anymore? Well gee.

Granted I only personally presented anecdotal evidence but you really beat me to the punch with the peer review thing. I guess something can't be true even if people all around the world are able to reliably reproduce the same results which explicitly point towards one possibility - in this case that life adapts to its surroundings.

Unless the bible says it too ofc.

 

Hmm, gravity is just a theory... nah, mustn't exist.

[EricX2]

I believe that this thread should be under off topic not general...

 

Other than that, personal opinions that will make others mad don't necessarily need to be expressed I don't care what people say.

[Slaeowulf]

Are you calling me a name?

Graham's Hierarchy... Please elaborate on what evidence anyone has presented.

 

Anyone who pretends to not know what trolling is is obviously trolling

[Slaeowulf]

That's not how it would work you can just get your leg regenerated,you pray for a new leg like a prosthetic one if you cant afford one.

 

Oh come on!! People are trolling this thead so hard now

 

That's it. I'm out. It was fun folks.

 

And thanks for all the likes

[laxer]

I'm Agnostic.

 

I am fine following the idea of a "God" up until the point of intelligence.

 

I will give you that there must have been a beginning to everything and it must have been all powerful. (Big Bang & Conservation of Energy Respectively)

 

I cannot give you that this beginning had any intelligence behind it and it was not merely all luck.

 

At the same time, I cannot discredit the existence of a God so I choose not to believe and let others believe as they so choose.

 

To quote the great Albert Einstein:

 

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable  but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.

[pcexplosion]

Oh come on!! People are trolling this thead so hard now

 

That's it. I'm out. It was fun folks.

Ok lol.

[Hyydrah]

Imagine someone saying to you that "these magic beads will double your framerate". Chances are you don't believe them, so the default position is to not believe that it is true.

 

The way I look at it, I don't believe in any Gods, Goddesses or higher deities since I am not convinced that they exist. The default position is lack of belief, which is why I am an atheist, however I'm willing to accept the existence of these deities if sufficient evidence is provided. I do not claim the definite non-existence of any deities, so I do not require any evidence regarding this.

[Vitalius]

Actually, I don't think either side has presented any evidence (besides peer reviewed text and theories).

They were talking about Evolution. One was talking about Evolution's existence and there is obvious proof of this.

The other rejected the idea that we come from monkeys. To be honest, it's a straw man's argument on both sides because what one is talking about, the other is not. Not intentionally of course, but eh.

 

Peer reviewed papers don't constitute evidence anymore? Well gee.

Granted I only personally presented anecdotal evidence but you really beat me to the punch with the peer review thing. I guess something can't be true even if people all around the world are able to reliably reproduce the same results which explicitly point towards one possibility - in this case that life adapts to its surroundings.

Unless the bible says it too ofc.

Why are you flaming?

He said that neither side has presented evidence, aside from peer reviewd text and theories. This implies that those two things are indeed evidence (even though theories aren't evidence, but semantics since they are based on evidence). 

You redefined what he said, or replied to him as if he said something he didn't. Straw man? Not sure. I'm not good at identifying logical fallacies correctly.

Hmm, gravity is just a theory... nah, mustn't exist.

Eh, that's actually complicated. Of the 4 forces in the universe (weak, strong, electromagnetism, and gravity), only gravity lacks a physical representation. This leads me to believe that it is potentially less understood as compared to the other 3 forces. Not because a physical representation does not exist, but because we have not found/recognized one yet.

Not that "mustn't exist" is complicated, because it obviously does, but that the theory itself, and our understanding of it, is complicated, since it appears to be incomplete. Or at least less complete than our understanding of the other 3 forces.

[solosdk]

We have beaten a 2 day old thread in terms of views/replies in just over an hour.

[iAsuno]

morgan freeman.....

[SMURG]

Are you calling me a name?

Graham's Hierarchy... Please elaborate on what evidence anyone has presented.

For evolution?

E. Coli. If I had to pick one area of research to demonstrate evolution, it would be Escherichia Coli. The great thing about E. Coli is that it reproduces rapidly, we're talking a new generation every half an hour or so. What this means is that you can observe the cells over hundreds or thousands of reproductive cycles, and therefore you can see the effects of evolution at a much faster pace.

If you alter the environment in which the E.Coli cells are growing, those which cannot adapt to the new environment die. If you replace glucose with lactose, only those capable of metabolising lactose will survive and therefore all further cells from that culture will be able to metabolise lactose. If you introduce penicillin, only those resistant to penicillin will survive to pass on that trait to their offspring.

Labs all over the world are able to reproduce these experiments because their results are FACT.

[TheMissxu]

Peer reviewed papers don't constitute evidence anymore? Well gee.

Granted I only personally presented anecdotal evidence but you really beat me to the punch with the peer review thing. I guess something can't be true even if people all around the world are able to reliably reproduce the same results which explicitly point towards one possibility - in this case that life adapts to its surroundings.

Unless the bible says it too ofc.

You bring up a great point. Stabbed me with my own dagger. I'd just bring up the fact that the Bible is really old? Hehe... This comes down to personal opinion on what truth is. Does something older and reliable trump something recent and not as developed? Or vice-versa?

[solosdk]

SMURG I think you need to calm down a little...

[TheMissxu]

Hmm, gravity is just a theory... nah, mustn't exist.

Gravity is not a theory. It's a phenomenon -- or call it what you wish.

The theory is what describes how it works.

[Vitalius]

You bring up a great point. Stabbed me with my own dagger. I'd just bring up the fact that the Bible is really old? Hehe... This comes down to personal opinion on what truth is. Does something older and reliable trump something recent and not as developed? Or vice-versa?

I'm sorry, but I'll never get over the fact that Job mentions that the Earth is a circle (it calls it a Compass), is placed in the Deep (which refers to a void, such as space), among many many other astronomical claims that turned out to be true 5,000 years later. 

It's like.... how can I ignore that?

They didn't have telescopes back then. Unless we go with the "aliens" thing...

(This is a joke, I'm really not saying Aliens.)

 

[solosdk]

The graviton has not been discovered so gravity can not fully be explained

[SMURG]

They were talking about Evolution. One was talking about Evolution's existence and there is obvious proof of this.

The other rejected the idea that we come from monkeys. To be honest, it's a straw man's argument on both sides because what one is talking about, the other is not. Not intentionally of course, but eh.

 

Why are you flaming?

He said that neither side has presented evidence, aside from peer reviewd text and theories. This implies that those two things are indeed evidence (even though theories aren't evidence, but semantics since they are based on evidence). 

You redefined what he said, or replied to him as if he said something he didn't. Straw man? Not sure. I'm not good at identifying logical fallacies correctly.

Eh, that's actually complicated. Of the 4 forces in the universe (weak, strong, electromagnetism, and gravity), only gravity lacks a physical representation. This leads me to believe that it is potentially less understood as compared to the other 3 forces. Not because a physical representation does not exist, but because we have not found/recognized one yet.

Not that "mustn't exist" is complicated, because it obviously does, but that the theory itself, and our understanding of it, is complicated, since it appears to be incomplete. Or at least less complete than our understanding of the other 3 forces.

I'll get past the flaming thing and apologise if I misunderstood his meaning. Sure he said "aside from", but he dismissed the peer reviewed papers out of hand as if their findings did not matter when they really, really do.

As for gravity, does the Higgs Boson not come some way to giving us a physical representation? Sure it's only about a field and it only gives particles mass rather than generating gravity but mass and gravity are related so I can't help but feel it's at least relevant even if we are still missing the graviton.

[TheMissxu]

For evolution?

E. Coli. If I had to pick one area of research to demonstrate evolution, it would be Escherichia Coli. The great thing about E. Coli is that it reproduces rapidly, we're talking a new generation every half an hour or so. What this means is that you can observe the cells over hundreds or thousands of reproductive cycles, and therefore you can see the effects of evolution at a much faster pace.

If you alter the environment in which the E.Coli cells are growing, those which cannot adapt to the new environment die. If you replace glucose with lactose, only those capable of metabolising lactose will survive and therefore all further cells from that culture will be able to metabolise lactose. If you introduce penicillin, only those resistant to penicillin will survive to pass on that trait to their offspring.

Labs all over the world are able to reproduce these experiments because their results are FACT.

I accept micro-evolution. Extrapolating the data is a very dangerous thing to do (see global warming).