• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

Did we evolve from Apes?

  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 41 57.7%

  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    Votes: 10 14.1%

  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 20 28.2%
  • Total voters
    71
WillRockwell said:
It has been a hallmark of the ignorant for over 100 years to denigrate the concept of natural selecition by making fun of primates. I see some things never change.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the guys arguments thus far? It's a lot of ignorance being spewed. Pretty much trying to say that if we haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. We haven't observed speciation outside the laboratory, so evolution can't have happened. What non-sense. Not when there are measureables like the fossil record. I haven't personally seen an atom, but I'm pretty damned sure they exist as they've been measured. Ain't seen the Big Bang, but pretty sure all the measurables point towards one. I haven't got a jar full of quarks and leptons...but I'm gonna say they're there as we have data indicating as much. Same with evolution, there's a lot of data which points to an ever changing natural process by which the organisms living on the planet change; that's evolution. What's the alternative? God did it? People want to laugh at those who accept the fact of evolution and they propose magic and mysticism in its place. Laughable at best, sad if you really think about it.
 
WillRockwell said:
It has been a hallmark of the ignorant for over 100 years to denigrate the concept of natural selecition by making fun of primates. I see some things never change.
Click to expand...

Over 100 years I have not seen anybody trying to denigrate the concept of natural selecition by making fun of primates. I have seen only strawmen, only strawmen, only strawmen made by blind fanatics of the religion of evolution, only strawmen and nothing else.
 
Ikari said:
Have you seen the guys arguments thus far? It's a lot of ignorance being spewed. Pretty much trying to say that if we haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. We haven't observed speciation outside the laboratory, so evolution can't have happened. What non-sense. Not when there are measureables like the fossil record. I haven't personally seen an atom, but I'm pretty damned sure they exist as they've been measured. Ain't seen the Big Bang, but pretty sure all the measurables point towards one. I haven't got a jar full of quarks and leptons...but I'm gonna say they're there as we have data indicating as much. Same with evolution, there's a lot of data which points to an ever changing natural process by which the organisms living on the planet change; that's evolution. What's the alternative? God did it? People want to laugh at those who accept the fact of evolution and they propose magic and mysticism in its place. Laughable at best, sad if you really think about it.
Click to expand...

Only strawmen, only strawmen, only strawmen made by blind fanatics of the religion of evolution. They always prove that they cannot understand a simple question, cannot answer a simple question, cannot understand meaning of a simple sentence and always resort to insults, ad homs and primitive strawmen. Even primitive primates address a source of irritation but they wouldn't be building and attacking stawmen with meaningless agression instead . It is no surprise that evolutionists express that they would be proud to have at least abilities of a primitive primate. But their efforts to imitate at least intelligence of a primitive primate keep on rendering no sensetive result.
 
Last edited:
There was a whole lot of nothing in that post. I think your posts are devolving.
 
Ikari said:
There was a whole lot of nothing in that post. I think your posts are devolving.
Click to expand...
Evolutionists cannot understand meaning of a simple sentence. Strawmen, ad homs and other fallacies has to be pointed to, they are not supposed to be refuted. Any refutation of logical fallacies only causes more logical fallaces, and thus renders itself meaningless. You wouldn't address my statements and questions, would you? Never in the world you would. What then would you expect in reply except for the pointing to the fact that you have not been able to understand and less to address my statements and questions. Many people put their bets on this fact and the obvious confirmation of this fact completes the game.

justone acting like Ikari said:
Have you seen the guys arguments thus far? It's a lot of ignorance being spewed. Pretty much trying to say that if we haven't seen god , god doesn't exist. We haven't miracle outside the laboratory, so miracle can't have happened. What non-sense. Not when there are measureables like the Bible record. I haven't personally seen an atom, but I'm pretty damned sure they exist as they've been measured.
Ain't seen the Big Bang, but pretty sure all the measurables point towards one. I haven't got a jar full of quarks and leptons...but I'm gonna say they're there as we have data indicating as much. Same with god, there's a lot of data which points to an ever changing process by which the organisms living on the planet change; that's work of god. What's the alternative? Nature did it by itslef? People want to laugh at those who accept the fact of god and they propose natural causes in its place. Laughable at best, sad if you really think about it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I did. You asked if we've witnessed evolution on the level of speciation, we have not directly seen that. But there is plenty of evidence in the history of the earth which points to a process by which the creatures on the planet change. Do you disagree with this? There are records via fossils and other archeological evidence which show the ever changing face of the earth's surface and the change in creatures as well. Do you disagree with this? The time scale full speciation occurs on is longer than humans have been around watching for these things, humanity has been on this planet for only a small small amount of time. But we've got plenty of evidence that shows that the system is dynamic and not static, that's the meaning of evolution. Things change and adapt, and there's lots of evidence that things have changed and adapted as things in the earth changed. Do you deny that?

I don't need to directly observe speciation in order to figure out what is going on. Humans are great at problem solving, one of the things our brains do very well. I haven't seen many things, I can't see gravity, I can't see subatomic particles (hell even atoms), I can't see electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum. I know all these things exist because there is data to back it up, so is there data to back up evolution. It's very clear that the biological world which inhabits the earth is a very dynamic system, and the changes were left as evidence for the rest of us. You can either accept that things are dynamic, or you can deny it and argue of a static universe. But things are measurably not static. So while you can deny the dynamics, the data clearly shows there to be dynamics.

BTW, your attempt there at being like me would have more weight behind it if there were a measurement of god. Do you have such a measurement? Cause if you don't then you're just blowing smoke. Especially funny because you claim that i have to have witnessed speciation but you're absolved from witness of a god. But I guess when you make circular, emotionalized based on emotionalized religion, that's what you get. In the end, there's a choice. You can't deny the dynamics of the world without being stupid and blind and deaf and...well you'd have to be a vegitable. So the dynamics are then produced either by nature or by a god. So you're telling me that between nature and magic, that magic makes more sense. I don't buy it. I've yet to see magic be the actual answer to something, it always comes down to natural forces so far. But maybe if you go out and measure god, we'll be able to figure this one out.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I did. You asked if we've witnessed evolution on the level of speciation, we have not directly seen that. But there is plenty of evidence in the history of the earth which points to a process by which the creatures on the planet change. Do you disagree with this? There are records via fossils and other archeological evidence which show the ever changing face of the earth's surface and the change in creatures as well.
Click to expand...

I don't need to directly observe God in order to figure out what is going on. Humans are great at problem solving, one of the things our brains do very well. I haven't seen many things, I can't see gravity, I can't see subatomic particles (hell even atoms), I can't see electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum. I know all these things exist because there is data to back it up, so is there data to back up God. There are records via things and other evidence which show that the ever changing face of the earth's surface and the change in creatures as well are made by God.


The Bible says: ‘’God is invisible but he can be clearly seen through the [observable] things he made.’’

Do you disagree with this?

Then I list some of the observed things (empirical evidence) and explain how they point to God, like you are doing, except the logic I submit has been put together and polished by the best logicians of humanity and the evidence is all around you.





Do I disagree with your reasoning? You have your logic and I have my logic. if you wish to abandon science and step into comparission and disscussions of our personal beliefs based on logical deductions from empirical evidence, then let's do it, but 1st you have to demonstrate that you’re capable of making a statement not loaded with strawmen, insults, avoidance of the points made and other logical fallacies.
 
Last edited:
justone said:
I don't need to directly observe God in order to figure out what is going on. Humans are great at problem solving, one of the things our brains do very well. I haven't seen many things, I can't see gravity, I can't see subatomic particles (hell even atoms), I can't see electromagnetic radiation outside the visible spectrum. I know all these things exist because there is data to back it up, so is there data to back up God. There are records via things and other evidence which show that the ever changing face of the earth's surface and the change in creatures as well are made by God.


The Bible says: ‘’God is invisible but he can be clearly seen through the [observable] things he made.’’

Do you disagree with this?

Then I list some of the observed things (empirical evidence) and explain how they point to God, like you are doing, except the logic I submit has been put together and polished by the best logicians of humanity and the evidence is all around you.





Do I disagree with your reasoning? You have your logic and I have my logic. if you wish to abandon science and step into comparission and disscussions of our personal beliefs based on logical deductions from empirical evidence, then let's do it, but 1st you have to demonstrate that you’re capable of making a statement not loaded with strawmen, insults, avoidance of the points made and other logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

The whole of your posts for the most parts are exactly what you outlawed towards me, especially the insults and avoidance. There's nothing in science that will ever say gods did or did not do anything. Evolution as a theory of science poses no threat to any theory of religion, 'cept maybe young earth creationism as that's been disproved via measurement. But in terms of saying did a god start things off, or whatever you want, science will never address that. There's nothing mutually exclusive in general with evolution and creationism. Evolution merely seeks to find the natural forces behind it, if you want to say ultimately some god had set it up; go right ahead. But also, that doesn't belong in the science classroom. The science classroom is not for theological argument, it's for science. Evolution is science, and evolution is known to have happened because we have direct evidence showing the changes. Humanoid changes too from very ape-like to more modern human-like. Evolution happened, it's a simple as that. Too many measured facts to deny it. Gods never can have these forms of scientific backing because there's nothing scientific about gods. They have been defined to be immeasurable and thus science can not and will not speak of them. Science operates in the real world with measurable effects. And one measured effect is evolution.
 
Ikari said:
Evolution as a theory of science
Click to expand...

If evolution is a theory of science, then why it is using exactly the same methodology proving evolution as I do proving existence God, - logical deduction from empirical evidence. Why then my personal belief does not belong to science?
 
You can't see gravity but you know it exists because you see its direct effects. You can drop a ball and know that gravity is pulling it. You can't see atoms with your naked eye but scientific equipment can, and interactions between atoms can be analyzed.

You can't test for God's existence. People who believe in God say it is self-evident for them, and that's great... but that's not proof. There is no control mechanism to separate an action caused by God from any rational, explicable action.

"Creation science" is an oxymoron. Science and the age of rationality arose within the past 400-500 years. Religious scripture predates that. Scripture therefore simply CANNOT contain science or any kind of scientific method. It is purely faith based.
 
Last edited:
justone said:
If evolution is a theory of science, then why it is using exactly the same methodology proving evolution as I do proving existence God, - logical deduction from empirical evidence. Why then my personal belief does not belong to science?
Click to expand...

Pardon me I might have missed it but what is your empirical evidence proving the existence of God?
 
justone said:
If evolution is a theory of science, then why it is using exactly the same methodology proving evolution as I do proving existence God, - logical deduction from empirical evidence. Why then my personal belief does not belong to science?
Click to expand...

There are ultimate tests for evolution seen directly through fossil and archeological recrods. Just like gravity, which you can not see, has tests to prove its existence. Measurable quantities like the Cosmic Microwave Background point to the big bang. Random vacuum fluctuations in which matter/anti-matter pairs can be brought into existence out of the vacuum field can be measured with precision measurements of the Lamb shift. All these things which are not directly visible with our eyes have ways in which they can be measured. Gods by their definition are immeasurable. There is no, nor can there ever be, concrete proof of god in this world. Thus theology and science are two very different subjects with different criteria.
 
We should all stop wasting our time with this guy. He's just a willfully ignorant guy who'd rather keep his head up his ass than accept some uncomfortable truths. Nobody's going to get anywhere.

He'll probably respond to this post saying all "evolutionists" know how to do is use ad homs and strawmen and claim again there's no reason to believe in evolution... And I'm going to ignore him, because that's what intelligent people do to deal with these sorts of folks.


Duke
 
justone said:
You look at empirical evidence. You say that the empirical evidence makes you to conclude logically that evolution occurred, occurs and will occur. Fine. I ask, - do you have one justone record of the occurrence of evolution? You say, - no.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I said at all. I said that humans have never observed SPECIATION since the theory of evolution was developed in the mid-1800s. Nor would one expect them to, since speciation usually takes place over the course of millennia (or longer).

There are PLENTY of examples of speciation in the fossil record. And there are PLENTY of examples of scientists observing evolution, just not speciation.

Furthermore, I don't understand how you can logically accept the existence of small-scale evolution over relatively short time frames, while denying that a lot of small changes over a long time will add up to some major changes. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for this logical disconnect, so that I can show you where you are confused.

justone said:
I look at empirical evidence. The empirical evidence makes me logically conclude that G-d exist, etc. I have records of his coming and resurrection.

How can your conclusions possibly be more true than mine?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about here. This thread is about the theory of evolution, and now you're talking about God and resurrection? :confused:
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Pardon me I might have missed it but what is your empirical evidence proving the existence of God?
Click to expand...

Pardon me, I might have missed but I am positively sure that you already asked exactly the same Q from me and I gave you an example. You did not make any objections.

Now you are coming back and making exactly the same argument from ignorance. I have problems with such an attitude of yours.

In order to learn evolution I read Origins of Life, I went to evolutionist sites only - never to Creationists or Id to look for objections, I read articles in peer reviewed magazines published by evolutionists. Why don't you do the same in order to get familiar with my religion including the fact that the method of logical deduction from empirical evidence was established for the proof of God by one of the greatest empiricists of the history, the father of the method?

Pardon me, before making the argument from ignorance, what do you think I or the giver of the fundamental laws of genetics, a highly trained mathematician and physicist Gregor Mendel would be abandoning logic and empirical evidence in our personal beliefs?
 
justone said:
Pardon me, I might have missed but I am positively sure that you already asked exactly the same Q from me and I gave you an example. You did not make any objections.

Now you are coming back and making exactly the same argument from ignorance. I have problems with such an attitude of yours.

In order to learn evolution I read Origins of Life, I went to evolutionist sites only - never to Creationists or Id to look for objections, I read articles in peer reviewed magazines published by evolutionists. Why don't you do the same in order to get familiar with my religion including the fact that the method of logical deduction from empirical evidence was established for the proof of God by one of the greatest empiricists of the history, the father of the method?

Pardon me, before making the argument from ignorance, what do you think I or the giver of the fundamental laws of genetics, a highly trained mathematician and physicist Gregor Mendel would be abandoning logic and empirical evidence in our personal beliefs?
Click to expand...

Why the rampage? If you have empirical, quantifible, testable evidence of god it should not be that hard for you to present it.
 
Ikari said:
There are ultimate tests for evolution seen directly through fossil and archeological recrods.
Click to expand...
There are ultimate tests for God seen directly through fossil and all the things around us.. Just like gravity, which you can not see, has tests to prove its existence..
Ikari said:
Measurable quantities like the Cosmic Microwave Background point to the big bang Random vacuum fluctuations in which matter/anti-matter pairs can be brought into existence out of the vacuum field can be measured with precision measurements of the Lamb shift.
Click to expand...
So show me the measurable quantities of evolution - like the Cosmic Microwave Background. And since you are there Show me Random vacuum fluctuations brought into existence, observed and measured. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy]Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] The vacuum energy is deduced from the concept of virtual particles, [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual]Virtual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] The term virtual has been defined...as "that which is not real" but may display the salient qualities of the real.Since you are at this try to convince me that virtuak reality you live in is the same as reality humans live in
Ikari said:
All these things which are not directly visible with our eyes have ways in which they can be measured. Gods by their definition are immeasurable.
Click to expand...

immeasurable does not mean that cannot be proven to exist. Moreover its existance is a kind of self evident, as you are speaking here.
Ikari said:
There is no, nor can there ever be, concrete proof of god in this world. Thus theology and science are two very different subjects with different criteria.
Click to expand...

What is a concrete proof? Is there a concrete proof of Big bang?
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Why the rampage? If you have empirical, quantifible, testable evidence of god it should not be that hard for you to present it.
Click to expand...

It is not hard at all, though it may take a few minutes. It is hard even to stay calm. You asked once. I represented. You said something like ''I don't care'' and went away. Did it happen, - yes or no? Why I should spend minutes of life for some guy with no sense of decency?
 
Kandahar said:
No, that is not what I said at all.
Click to expand...
You exactly said that and you keep on saying the same. I have to come to the conclusion that you don’t understand what you are saying.
Kandahar said:
I said that humans have never observed SPECIATION since the theory of evolution was developed in the mid-1800s.
Click to expand...
Had humans observed it before mid-1800s?

Kandahar said:
Nor would one expect them to, since speciation usually takes place over the course of millennia (or longer).
Click to expand...

So you are the man I have been looking for, the only man who posses a graph which would show how long does it take for a simple asexual organism to evolve into sexually reproductive organism? How many generations in the frame of time would it take to a primitive sea organism to develop wings and fly in the air? How long does it take to a new organ to establish communication with barin and accordingly with other organs? If there have been 0 speciation in all the rich world of species around us during all existence of humanity, how does it come that 0 multiplied by a millennium makes a positive number? Show me mathematics, and show what observations of the changes are described by the same mathematics.

Kandahar said:
There are PLENTY of examples of speciation in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of fossils is not an example of speciation. That is not to mention that there are no fossils to cause such an interpretation. Have you been to a Museum of natural history ever? Have you looked at the fossils, - you will see a reconstruction (by imagination) of a fossil and above it – drawings of the chain of evolution as results of imagination of the artist. Imagination is not a record.

Kandahar said:
And there are PLENTY of examples of scientists observing evolution, just not speciation.
Click to expand...
How evolution can be observed without speciation observed?

Kandahar said:
Furthermore, I don't understand how you can logically accept the existence of small-scale evolution over relatively short time frames, while denying that a lot of small changes over a long time will add up to some major changes. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for this logical disconnect, so that I can show you where you are confused.
Click to expand...

I do not except it logically. It has been observed. Accepting it is not the matter of logic, but the matter of knowledge and ignorance. Making extension of observations into speculations is the matter of logic. You have you logic I have mine, however I can win a logical contest it wouldn’t me more than winning a logical contest, but any body proficient in logic would know that it is quite a meningless contest.
Kandahar said:
I have no idea what you're talking about here. This thread is about the theory of evolution, and now you're talking about God and resurrection?
Click to expand...


Because the way you are trying to prove evolution to me – applying your logic to empirical evidence is no different from existent proofs of God.
 
justone said:
There are ultimate tests for God seen directly through fossil and all the things around us.. Just like gravity, which you can not see, has tests to prove its existence..
Click to expand...

Gravity has real world effects which can directly be measured. Things don't exist in vacuum; things tend to interact with each other. There is no direct proof of god, there is only indirect information which is given weight by people wishing to believe.

justone said:
So show me the measurable quantities of evolution -
Click to expand...

Look at the fossil record, at the archeological data, at DNA, at the evolution of certain species separated from other species, etc. The data behind evolution is out there, it has been measured, and has been reported. None of which can be said for gods.

justone said:
like the Cosmic Microwave Background. And since you are there Show me Random vacuum fluctuations brought into existence, observed and measured. Vacuum energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The vacuum energy is deduced from the concept of virtual particles, Virtual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The term virtual has been defined...as "that which is not real" but may display the salient qualities of the real.Since you are at this try to convince me that virtuak reality you live in is the same as reality humans live in
Click to expand...

No, virtual refers to a time frame. Because of the uncertainty principle, energy conservation can be broken for very small amounts of time. The virtual particles, which are the matter/anti-matter pair produced from the vacuum field, exist only briefly before annihilating each other. But this existence has a very profound effect on many fundamental values, which can and have been accurately measured. The Lamb Shift is just such a measurement.

justone said:
immeasurable does not mean that cannot be proven to exist. Moreover its existance is a kind of self evident, as you are speaking here.
Click to expand...

Immeasurable does mean it cannot have any scientific proof. Science requires at some level a measurable quantity which can be studied. Perhaps in the realm of philosophy gods can be discussed and "proven", but not in the realm of science in which things must have something which can be measured, some form of observable.

justone said:
What is a concrete proof? Is there a concrete proof of Big bang?
Click to expand...

There are many good indications of the Big Bang at this point, such as CMB, expanding universe, etc. That is why it is the most accepted, there is measurable quantities which go with the Big Bang. While the is not what could be considered "concrete proof" with the Big Bang, the Big Bang has things which can be measured. That which has no measurable can not ever be fully proven. There is concrete proof that massive particles attract, that changes in index of refraction cause deviation in the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, etc. What is the proof of your gods?
 
Kandahar said:
No, that is not what I said at all. I said that humans have never observed SPECIATION since the theory of evolution was developed in the mid-1800s. Nor would one expect them to, since speciation usually takes place over the course of millennia (or longer).
Click to expand...

What about speciation via hybridisation, polyploidly and autopolyploidy of plants? Where new species of plants pop up and can not mate with their parent species. Thats a creation of a new species.
 
justone said:
Had humans observed it before mid-1800s?
Click to expand...

No one was really looking for it until the theory of evolution. Why would they?

justone said:
So you are the man I have been looking for, the only man who posses a graph which would show how long does it take for a simple asexual organism to evolve into sexually reproductive organism?
Click to expand...

"How long" would depend entirely on circumstance, but on earth it took about 2.5 billion years. The oldest forms of "life" (which were much simpler than anything we normally consider "life" today) appeared about 3.5 billion years ago, and sex first evolved about 1 billion years ago.

justone said:
How many generations in the frame of time would it take to a primitive sea organism to develop wings and fly in the air?
Click to expand...

Approximately 3.35 billion years. The first life appeared in the oceans about 3.5 billion years ago. Archaeopteryx evolved about 150 million years ago.

justone said:
How long does it take to a new organ to establish communication with barin and accordingly with other organs? If there have been 0 speciation in all the rich world of species around us during all existence of humanity, how does it come that 0 multiplied by a millennium makes a positive number?
Click to expand...

Because A) It isn't zero, it could be some fraction less than one; and B) just because it hasn't been observed in the 150 years since humans have been looking for it doesn't mean that it's never happened in the existence of humanity. Even humans themselves have evolved into different species. Homo habilis looked very different than homo sapiens.

Keep in mind that there is no ironclad rule that it takes X number of years for Trait Y to evolve. It depends entirely on the environment and circumstance. It's frequently been said that if you could hit the "Reset" button on the earth to return it to its primordial state, it is a virtual certainty that nothing even remotely resembling humans would evolve again. There are just too many random occurrences that affect the planet's environment.

justone said:
Show me mathematics, and show what observations of the changes are described by the same mathematics.
Click to expand...

Mathematics of what? I'm not sure what you're asking for.

justone said:
Your interpretation of fossils is not an example of speciation. That is not to mention that there are no fossils to cause such an interpretation. Have you been to a Museum of natural history ever? Have you looked at the fossils, - you will see a reconstruction (by imagination) of a fossil and above it – drawings of the chain of evolution as results of imagination of the artist. Imagination is not a record.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not sure what you're implying? Are you suggesting that the scientists may have gotten the skeleton wrong, and what they think is the creature's skull is actually its ass?

justone said:
How evolution can be observed without speciation observed?
Click to expand...

There are countless examples. I'll just give you one of my favorites:

Up until the 1700s, there were lots of pepper moths in England. Most of them were white, but there were a few black ones as well. They were the same species, but a few minor genes affected the color of them. The moths often lived around white birch trees. Unsurprisingly, the white moths camouflaged better than the black moths, and were less likely to be eaten. This explains why they outnumbered the black moths.

When the Industrial Revolution began, England's new factories began producing large quantities of black soot, which stuck to the birch trees. Within just a few generations, the black moths suddenly outnumbered the white moths.

In the 1970s, England (like most developed countries) began implementing stricter pollution controls...and now white moths are making a comeback once again.

Evolution in action.

justone said:
Because the way you are trying to prove evolution to me – applying your logic to empirical evidence is no different from existent proofs of God.
Click to expand...

If you want to debate God, there is a religion/philosophy board on this forum.
 
Ikari said:
Gravity has real world effects which can directly be measured. Things don't exist in vacuum; things tend to interact with each other. There is no direct proof of god, there is only indirect information which is given weight by people wishing to believe.
Click to expand...
God has real world effects which can directly be measured, gravity for an example.
Ikari said:
Look at the fossil record, at the archeological data, at DNA, at the evolution of certain species separated from other species, etc. The data behind evolution is out there, it has been measured, and has been reported.
Click to expand...

Ok you measure fossils in centimeters, cubic centimeters, you take spectrum analyses… how does it show evolution?
Ikari said:
None of which can be said for gods.
Click to expand...

God is infinite. Infinity includes all centimeters and cubic centimeters and all other possible numbers, including … ok I will skip complication… everything. All your measurements are just particular cases of infinity.

Ikari said:
No, virtual refers to a time frame. Because of the uncertainty principle, energy conservation can be broken for very small amounts of time.
Click to expand...

Energy conservation cannot be broken, it is an abstract.
Ikari said:
The virtual particles, which are the matter/anti-matter pair produced from the vacuum field, exist only briefly before annihilating each other.
But this existence has a very profound effect on many fundamental values, which can and have been accurately measured. The Lamb Shift is just such a measurement.
Click to expand...
If they existed their existence would have a profound effect on instruments. Profound effect on values is an effect of an abstract on an abstract.

‘’Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.’’
Nikola Tesla,

You are living in a virtual reality.

Ikari said:
Immeasurable does mean it cannot have any scientific proof. Science requires at some level a measurable quantity which can be studied. Perhaps in the realm of philosophy gods can be discussed and "proven", but not in the realm of science in which things must have something which can be measured, some form of observable.
Click to expand...

Infinity is immeasurable. It undeniably exists both in mathematical and physical meaning. Indeed science is limited to numbers not going into infinity. Indeed science has limitations. Can you go back to measurables that would constitute an abstract mathematical model of evolutions, or at least to attempt to do like vacuum fluctuations?
Ikari said:
There are many good indications of the Big Bang at this point, such as CMB, expanding universe, etc.


here was That is why it is the most accepted, there is measurable quantities which go with the Big Bang. While the is not what could be considered "concrete proof" with the Big Bang, the Big Bang has things which can be measured.
Click to expand...

There are many good indications of god while the is not what could be considered "concrete proof it is the most accepted. There were all good indications that the sun was spinning around the Earth and there were all measurable there. I am yet to hear what concrete proof does mean?

Ikari said:
That which has no measurable can not ever be fully proven.
Click to expand...

Only if you prove that infinity which is not measurable does not exist.

Ikari said:
There is concrete proof that massive particles attract, that changes in index of refraction cause deviation in the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, etc.
Click to expand...

How ever it is related to Big Bang or evolution or explains what is concrete proof?

Ikari said:
What is the proof of your gods?
Click to expand...

The same as of evolution and Big Bang - logical deduction from measurable empirical evidence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom