We pretty much just did. Now let’s see your God do it.
“Father I am going to roll the dice now, just letting you know that a 7 or an 11 would be really awesome”
Doesn’t he already know?
I think the reason they call it the theory of evolution and the theory of the Big Bang is because there is no evidence. I really believe that is the reason.
Now you have insulted all Christians and other people who have had a personal experience with God. I know that is not evidence to you, but to them it is proof. As for faith, everyone including atheists have faith in something. Like there not being a God for instance.
As for crying about science attacking their faith I have not seen any crying just ignoring.
Please don’t get angry and yell, it is of no use. It doesn’t matter what anyone believes about anything, it is only truth that matters. If we all searched for truth we would all be on the same side. I know you are intelligent, so you will understand that.
That’s not the reason. You just don’t know what the word “theory” means in science. Evolution is a proven fact. It is also a proven fact that the universe expanded (and continues to expand) from an original singularity. A theory doesn’t even get called a theory until it’s supporte by evidence.
If it’s not evidence to anyone else, it’s not evidence.
The word “theory” doesn’t always mean “Hell, who knows? It’s just a shot in the dark”. In fact, the word even gets used to describe things at the very apex of humanity’s ability to possess rock-hard, irrefutable, watertight knowledge. For example, I present to you: number theory.
(I know arguing with lekatt is even less productive than arguing with kanicbird on this point. But they say these discussions aren’t done for the benefit of the participants, but for that of the onlookers…)
Ha! There’s no evidence that numbers exist!
D’oh!
And I’d like to thank you for your efforts.
Now that’s just silly. If we accept what you just posted then we have to accept there is no evidence of anything at all. Dio I’ve said this before and 'll say it again: I agree with your positioin, I have alot of repsect for you as a poster, but you routinely overstate your position in this concrete way that makes it farcical and able to be refuted by any high schol debater.
Any thing that any one group agrees is evidence will not be evidence to other groups or individuals. Science and law are the two most widely accepted fields that rely on rigorous standards of evidence, Yet much of what is routinely accepted as evidence in a courtroom would never be accepted as evidence in “Nature”, and similarly what is routinely accepted as evidence in scientific discourse would never be admissable in a court of law.
For that matter I doubt that any piece of evidence is acceptable to every law court in the world. Therefore based on your position there is no evidence of anything at all because nothing is evidence to every person.
Evidence is just what we use to determine the truth. All positions regarding the truth are based on evidence of some kind. Saying that anything that isn’t universally accepted isn’t evidence is just saying that we can never resolve any disputed truth. That makes your statement self referential, paradoxical and silly all at once.
That’s quite a trick for a 10 word sentence.
I guess that’s why they call it the germ theory too?
You seem to have misinterpreted the quantification in Dio’s sentence; he’s saying, if no one else accepts something as evidence, it should not count as evidence. He is not saying everyone else has to accept something as evidence for it to count as evidence; he’s just saying that at least one other person has to.
And the theory of gravity?
A theory is a model explaining observed data and anticipating future data. It’s held as true until contrary evidence is offered, or data doesn’t corroborate the expectations, at which point it is discarded or amended. Theories, too, evolve.
There are no unequivocal truths in science*, and no absolute rules either. Only theories. All require and are validated by existing evidence. There is plenty of evidence in favor of evolution and the Big Bang, and absolutely no evidence *against *evolution or the Big Bang. Yet.
- : except in pure maths
Then you are even more ignorant than you appear to be. If I might suggest, please learn something about science before you talk about it. You’re just embarrassing yourself.
Wrong. No matter how often you repeat it droning on with stupidity like that doesn’t make it right. It isn’t faith to not believe something. Do you have an abiding faith in the non-existence of unicorns?
If you searched for truth, you might realize that you’re devoted to a child’s story and wasting your life in the pursuit of ignorance and self-delusion.
Exactly. Evidence has to be “evident” to more than one person.
In that case he is still wrong, and he is still overtstating his position in a ridiculous absolutist manner, and instead of being self referential, paradoxical and silly all at once it is now a non-sequitur, a strawman and silly all at once.
To start with you or I can construct an argument within our own head or on paper that that is evidence based despite the fact that no one else accepts the evidence. If we don’t accept this then all groundbreaking science is not based on evidence because when it was reasoned out nobody else was even aware of the existence of the evidence, much less accepting of it.
To take this to an extreme to prove a point, this position forces you to conclude that when Semmelweis said that disease was transmitted on unwashed hands, he was not basing that claim on evidence, because not a single person in the world accepted the evidence he produced. That is just silly. Of course Semmelweis’ claims were based on evidence. The fact that everybody else in the entire world discounted his evidence didn’t make it any less evidence. To say otherwise forces you to the ridiculous position of saying that his evidence wasn’t evidence when he initially used it, but it magically became evidence at some later date when some other person accepted it as evidence.
The position is also a strawman because nobody here is discussing evidence that “at least one other person” does not accept. Certainly lekatt has not done so. I am absolutely certain lekatt’s experiences would be accepted as evidence wer ehe called upon to witness in countless churches worlwide. I doubt that you or Dio would dispute that this is true.
Good grief, I can’t believe I’m siding with lekatt in a debate, but I’d rather see a debate based on rationality and not just let yet another of Dios silly absolutist positions slide past. Attacks lekatt’s position based on how silly it is, not by inventing silly and fallacious strawman positions from which to attack it.
Right, I understand, but how evolution works according to the theory of evolution does not allow there to be an endpoint. Therefore, it is simply not possible to endorse the theory of evolution and believe that god created man in his image. The bolded part above simply doesn’t make any sense–it’s not possible to use evolution as a means to come up with something because that’s not how evolution works.
Stated another way, if you fully endorsed the theory of evolution, you would agree that there would still be dinosaurs roaming the earth if conditions were still right for them. In fact, mammals would never have come into existence if specific events hadn’t occurred that caused mammals to be the more fit species. However, as a Christian, there’s no way you could acknowledge that it is possible for humans never to exist.
I have to side with Dio. Blake has, at most, a grammar nitpick.
I don’t tithe for cold pizza. Surely a good delivery driver knows that?