Hey, after reading a few posts, I was appalled by how many people on AG shut out science for the mere fact that they don't like it. I'm not talking just about the super-religious people, I've also seen a few people who said no to science just because they could. They didn't listen or pay attention to any evidence or sources brought forward, and they did not use vocabulary correctly. They claimed something wasn't true at all and that it's impossible to figure out what happened, "B cuz i wusn't there lololololololol" They were flaming, flaming, trolling, trolling, knowledge haters. Just flat out haters. I'm tired of these people, you know? Please, share your thoughts on this.
but just because we haven't seen or met them doesn't make them any less real.
Yes. It makes them a lot less real.
It's like.. if I told you about unicorns or fairies and gnomes that live in your garden but no one has ever seen them - we have no evidence to believe that they really exist. With science, it's all about plausibility and evidence. Is it plausible that there's life on other planets? Yes. Why? Because there's life on our planet, and there are the materials for life on other planets - there may even be life on other planets in our own solar system. Is it plausible that a being exists outside of space and time and controls the entire universe? Well.. we don't have any precedent for that... and we don't have any evidence for it either. So no, it's not particularly plausible.
And the whole reason for that question in the first place was to show an example of a 'fault' in science.
It's not a fault of science to have some evidence of something before thinking it's real. That's being rational, and careful, and thoughtful.
So yes, I could just be blindly believing in God, but how is that any different than believing in any other theory?
Because those other theories actually have evidence, and we don't have evidence for the existence of a god. That's why one is blind faith, and the other is science.
OMG, DANG IT! D:< I typed up a whole bunch but accidentally deleted. Guess I'll just have to start over *sighs*
Just because I haven't encountered something doesn't make it false. Say I lived in space away from all bodies of mass, thus no gravity is exerted on me or my spaceship. Then somebody comes along and tries to convince me that gravity is real. I would think it's stupid and deny it's existence, but I'd still be wrong. And we certainly don't have any evidence that refutes God's existence. And God's existence is perfectly plausible, just look at the complexity of your body. Your brain controls all your bodily functions and you don't even have to think of it (pumping blood, digestion, making saliva, etc).
I would think a fault in science is something that it cannot explain currently. In this case, the first atoms.
There are still plenty of theories that have no evidence to them. Example being E=MC^2. Nobody has managed to shoot mass off at the square of speed of light, so we don't know if this is correct or not. Or even dimensions beyond the 4 we live in (I included time). We don't know if any exist, but people still believe in several more dimensions. Basically, those are just a few things that are generally believed but has little or no evidence to back it up.
Just because I haven't encountered something doesn't make it false. Say I lived in space away from all bodies of mass, thus no gravity is exerted on me or my spaceship. Then somebody comes along and tries to convince me that gravity is real. I would think it's stupid and deny it's existence, but I'd still be wrong. And we certainly don't have any evidence that refutes God's existence. And God's existence is perfectly plausible, just look at the complexity of your body. Your brain controls all your bodily functions and you don't even have to think of it (pumping blood, digestion, making saliva, etc).
so every thing that is not explained is just by defalt the workings of god. and how do i know that god had anything to do with how our body works. that is not evidence that some sort of immortal exists
Well, supposedly, all the matter in the universe was closely condensed into some kind of star, and then finally, the pressure was too much and said clump of mass exploded, sending matter all over the universe, creating our universe today.
I was just scanning the forum and came across something that sparked my interest...
I hate to break it to you, but magic is fake. We have no proof of its existence.
You also have no proof of the existence of science, only a huge amount of remarkably convincing evidence that it works. Remember, every conclusion begins with an assumption based on a large amount of evidence. First assumption: everything here is here. How do we know that? We don't. But is appears to be quite possible that we exist in an environment of existing matter. What you just said would be similar to me saying that, since we have no proof of our existence, we do not exist. We have evidence, but that isn't the same as proof.
Anyhow...back to the present point...I believe that one has already been argued against...
Because those other theories actually have evidence, and we don't have evidence for the existence of a god. That's why one is blind faith, and the other is science.
humans blindly believe in their own ability to sort things out themselves :P Just kidding. I'm not a science hater, but as I look at the more recent "discoveries," they seem like desperate attempts to remove religion from life so people can run around like maniacs doing things inappropriate for discussion on family-friendly forums. Anyhow, evolution is real and out there...microevolution (otherwise known as "natural selection". That is a "roven theory." On the other hand, macroevolution (what everyone thinks of when "evolution" is mentioned) is an enormous assumption based on microevolution. We have absolutely no evidence for it, only hypotheses. Feel free to object, I'm quite ready for it. Remember, I'm not saying macroevolution is false (though I'm highly confident it is), I'm saying we have no evidence for it (see first quote+argument).
we don't have evidence for the existence of a god.
Look around you! Do you not see a design in everything? Compare your hand to that of an ape! Don't they look similar!? Yet the DNA that controls that part of humans and apes is not even similar. Look at the snowflakes! They're so small, but complex, you wonder if Someone made the laws of the universe and just decided to make some that governed how each snowflake is created, but still different from every other one. How could random chance suddenly make a universe so complex and beautiful as the one we live in?
so every thing that is not explained is just by defalt the workings of god. and how do i know that god had anything to do with how our body works. that is not evidence that some sort of immortal exists
i have a question, how far is earth from the edge of the universe.
Universe is infinite, therefore the Earth is exactly Infinity millimeters away from the edge of the universe.
Anyhow, evolution is real and out there...microevolution (otherwise known as "natural selection". That is a "roven theory." On the other hand, macroevolution (what everyone thinks of when "evolution" is mentioned) is an enormous assumption based on microevolution. We have absolutely no evidence for it, only hypotheses.
OMG! I hate it when people confuse adaptation (micro) with evolution (macro). And then proceed to use adaptation as a basis for us evolving!
so every thing that is not explained is just by defalt the workings of god. and how do i know that god had anything to do with how our body works. that is not evidence that some sort of immortal exists
Do you have any evidence to prove that God DIDN'T have anything to do with the creation of your body?
we evolve to adapt and we adapt to evolve.
Hm...Not quite. Adaptation is little things, such as beak size. Evolution would be the creation of an entirely new species, so for humans to 'evolve' we would have to adapt many new characteristics that we don't even need. Don't forget that Darwin classified adaptation as getting rid of bad qualities and creating good ones. Also, humans have been around for a rather long time. And we don't seem to be getting many new characteristics. In fact, because of genetics and such, it would actually be really hard to. We would have to somehow modify the human gene pool and allow certain characteristics to be expressed, and repress other ones.
Then somebody comes along and tries to convince me that gravity is real. I would think it's stupid and deny it's existence, but I'd still be wrong.
Well, if they come along and tell you about gravity & how it works, and show evidence for it, and when you put that evidence and data to the test, it works - if you still think it's stupid and deny it's existence, then you're a bit of a rube.
And we certainly don't have any evidence that refutes God's existence.
It is not the responsibility of a skeptic or scientist to disprove something for which there is no evidence for. If you are throwing out wild claims about the nature of the universe and you're not backing it up with anything, then it's just tom-foolery and doesn't deserve any attention; scientifically speaking.
I would think a fault in science is something that it cannot explain currently. In this case, the first atoms.
So it was a fault of science in 4000 B.C. because we couldn't *yet* explain complex weather patterns, tornados, volcanos, principles of aerodynamic flight, and how a nuclear fusion reaction works?
No. Science isn't about getting all of the answers to the universe right now - and if you're upset with science because it hasn't given you an answer to every question in the universe you could ever had, that's your problem; not a fault with science.
Basically, those are just a few things that are generally believed but has little or no evidence to back it up.
I think you're using the term 'believed' in conjunction with faith. These are working hypotheses & theories which are plausible and seem to work with our understanding of the universe, physics, natural constants, etc. They're some of the best explanations we have. Are they perfect? No - we're constantly appending our knowledge with new information and new data. Based on what we current know however, these are the explanations that we have that make sense - again, based on what we actually have evidence for.
Again, I think this boils down to you being impatient or upset about not having the answer to the universe right now. That just seems silly to me.
@sonicheroes95:
or how the big bang even triggered.
i don't flat out hate science, but how science tries to explain things that happens through magic.
and the reason i called it hell is because the world's full of idiots who don't use logic.
magic defies logic clueless.
From this point on I'm not even going to respond to your posts based on your.... shockingly convoluted world view.
Do you have any evidence to prove that God DIDN'T have anything to do with the creation of your body?
be real witch one is MORE LIKELY to be true the science ones that have been changing and changing as humans got SMARTER or one that was thought up years and years ago? i want you honest opinion
