Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Against Objectivity
Collapse
X
-
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"
Fortunately science will never be "settled."
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostScience is not based on what we "know" or "do not know" it is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis with objective verifiable evidence.
Fortunately science will never be "settled."...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostTell that to Tassman, you climate change skeptic.
I believe that Climate Change 'partially caused by humans' based on the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution is real. I am always open to evidence that this is not the case, but unfortunately the evidence to the contrary is not forthcoming at present. The questioning of the human influence on Climate change needs a good argument and evidence. Like in the case of Evolution argue against the human influence on climate Change have not provide good scientific arguments.
One thing I responded to, which was the original basis of the thread, is that the increase in frequency and intensity is claimed 'by liberals?' to be caused by Global Warming caused by humans and is some how claimed to be 'proven.' This is not true, and science at this point considers it a possibility, but there are other regional factors influence the frequency and intensity over time.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-24-2017, 08:51 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostI love how skeptics will preach about "settled science" until it's something that could be used to defend theism, then they suddenly start crying about how "We don't know!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut those are fringe views, the mainstream of science supports the Big Bang.Certainly all our knowledge is probabilistic.
I note that you skipped the origin of life!
And fine tuning is not fallacious, it is simply the result of asking what would happen if we varied various physical quantities.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimLamebrain View PostScience can't tell us anything about that which is beyond our ability to observe, which means it isn't settled science, it isn't knowledge of any kind, and can't be used to defend theism or anything else.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post... our universe may be just one of many, perhaps an infinite number, of real, physical universes.
More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?
... is merely god-of-the-gaps argument, and they never end well for the proponents.
But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?
Best wishes,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut this is speculative, again, not mainstream science.
More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?But origin of life questions are based on what we do know. What we know of natural processes, what we now know of the extraordinary complexity of life.But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostBut this is speculative, again, not mainstream science.
More speculation? Evolution of what molecules?
But origin of life questions are based on what we do know. What we know of natural processes, what we now know of the extraordinary complexity of life.
But the conditions are extremely narrow that support life, and we may wonder why?
Best wishes,
Lee
Again, 'arguing from ignorance' does not offer coherent arguments nor answers to questions in science.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostUnwarranted is the speculation is that there is a definable first beginning of our physical existence or even our universe supported by mainstream science, for which there are different scenarios in mainstream science none of which support your assertions.
Amino acids.
What scientific hypothesis concerning the possible origins of life (abiogenesis) is based on sound science, natural laws, and natural processes. The evolution of the complexity of life has been adequately explained by the science of evolution. Intelligent Design arguments for the problem of complexity have not been able to falsify their hypothesis that complexity cannot arise through natural processes of evolution.
Wonder Why?!?!? Natural Law, natural processes give an adequate explanation why, and given the fat that there are literally billions at minimum of possible stars with planets in our galaxy alone, and there are millions of galaxies in our universe, no problem that over time there are and possibly were planets like earth in our universe.
Again, 'arguing from ignorance' does not offer coherent arguments nor answers to questions in science.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostUnwarranted is the speculation is that there is a definable first beginning of our physical existence or even our universe supported by mainstream science, for which there are different scenarios in mainstream science none of which support your assertions.
Amino acids.
Intelligent Design arguments for the problem of complexity have not been able to falsify their hypothesis that complexity cannot arise through natural processes of evolution.
Wonder Why?!?!? Natural Law, natural processes give an adequate explanation why, and given the fat that there are literally billions at minimum of possible stars with planets in our galaxy alone, and there are millions of galaxies in our universe, no problem that over time there are and possibly were planets like earth in our universe.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostIn mainstream science there is only the inflationary universe, followed by the Big Bang, so the universe had a beginning, in all probability.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...verse.html#jCp
But amino acids don't evolve!
But they've been able to set probability bounds, Michael Behe draws the line at new protein-protein interactions in the cell.
Here are some factors that weigh against an earth-like planet, and then you do the math!
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
398 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
165 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
254 responses
1,174 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 04:59 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
190 responses
929 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:53 PM
|
Comment