|
|
#21
11-05-2006, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 6:1 against quinn ever posting in this thread again? [/ QUOTE ] Whew, glad I didnt get any takers. [/ QUOTE ] You closed the bidding too soon. [/ QUOTE ] omg I look like an idiot... gotta stop scanning and start reading ALL the responses...... 
|
|
#22
11-05-2006, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Standing up to scrutiny is not by any means proof. That is completely ridiculous. That's like saying: A->B B -- A Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists. [/ QUOTE ] Its nothing like your example, and yes it is what we mean by proof. Obviously, no sort of scientific theory can really be proven in the same sense as a mathematical or logical proof. When scientists say prove, they mean stand up to rigorous scrutiny over a long time. Gravity is by no means proven, nor is the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. We can illustrate many ways in which they could be shown false, and so far they've passed all of those tests, but it is still entirely possible that tomorrow, a pregnant woman will give birth to a dog and most of evolutionary biology (not to mention medicine, developmental bio, and a host of other fields) would be completely turned on their head. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is proven. If we have to use what you apparently think proven means, it quickly becomes a useless definition. [/ QUOTE ] You seem to be confusing the word "prove" with "validate." The theory of evolution is certainly not proven. That said, arguing over definitions is retarded so I'll just stop and let you look up the word.
|
|
#23
11-05-2006, 01:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
[ QUOTE ]
No one's ever going to prove gravity exists. [/ QUOTE ] So what are you going to blame when the inevitable anvil falls on your avatar's head? It's looking up searching for something, isn't it?
|
|
#24
11-05-2006, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Standing up to scrutiny is not by any means proof. That is completely ridiculous. That's like saying: A->B B -- A Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists. [/ QUOTE ] Its nothing like your example, and yes it is what we mean by proof. Obviously, no sort of scientific theory can really be proven in the same sense as a mathematical or logical proof. When scientists say prove, they mean stand up to rigorous scrutiny over a long time. Gravity is by no means proven, nor is the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. We can illustrate many ways in which they could be shown false, and so far they've passed all of those tests, but it is still entirely possible that tomorrow, a pregnant woman will give birth to a dog and most of evolutionary biology (not to mention medicine, developmental bio, and a host of other fields) would be completely turned on their head. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is proven. If we have to use what you apparently think proven means, it quickly becomes a useless definition. [/ QUOTE ] You seem to be confusing the word "prove" with "validate." The theory of evolution is certainly not proven. That said, arguing over definitions is retarded so I'll just stop and let you look up the word. [/ QUOTE ] I think its you who is confusing definitions. I guess I would be ok if we just never used the term prove to talk about anything in science....but it aint happening. People want to say prove, people DO say prove, and words mean whatever people consistently intend them to mean. Also, a quick scan of the dictionary (not to imply this is the ultimate ender of all disagreements) shows that my usage of the word prove is MUCH more common and standard than yours. In fact, the 4 synonyms are: demonstrate, confirm, substantiate and verify Thanks for stopping and letting me look up the word though. Appreciate the magnanimity.
|
|
#25
11-05-2006, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc.
|
|
#26
11-05-2006, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Standing up to scrutiny is not by any means proof. That is completely ridiculous. That's like saying: A->B B -- A Also, I never claimed that this was reason to believe in God. All I said was that it's ridiculous to accept gravity because it stands up to scrutiny and then reject God because you can't prove his existence. No one's ever going to prove gravity exists. [/ QUOTE ] Its nothing like your example, and yes it is what we mean by proof. Obviously, no sort of scientific theory can really be proven in the same sense as a mathematical or logical proof. When scientists say prove, they mean stand up to rigorous scrutiny over a long time. Gravity is by no means proven, nor is the Theory of Evolution or Relativity. We can illustrate many ways in which they could be shown false, and so far they've passed all of those tests, but it is still entirely possible that tomorrow, a pregnant woman will give birth to a dog and most of evolutionary biology (not to mention medicine, developmental bio, and a host of other fields) would be completely turned on their head. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is proven. If we have to use what you apparently think proven means, it quickly becomes a useless definition. [/ QUOTE ] You seem to be confusing the word "prove" with "validate." The theory of evolution is certainly not proven. That said, arguing over definitions is retarded so I'll just stop and let you look up the word. [/ QUOTE ] alright then..we need your theory to be "validated" then..and it hasn't been, not even once..gravity has been with every experiment involving gravity that has ever taken place... quinn, wouldn't you demand sufficient evidence that Zues exists before believing in him?? so why not with the christian god?.."ZOMG it's so obvious that god exists and jesus is our savior" is not a good answer...you seem like the type of person who thinks that though. I don't think that you understand how reasonable people accurately come to conclusions
|
|
#27
11-05-2006, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with.
|
|
#28
11-05-2006, 01:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In other words, the theory of evolution has been proven thousands of times, to greater and lesser extents, and will probably continue to be with each new fossil found, each new gene mapped and characterized, etc. [/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the proof gains in strength with each successive addition of evidence to shore up the argument? Said argument is already very strong to begin with. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmm. I don't know, but you are certainly using the word more towards the 'quinn' end of the spectrum, so perhaps its more appropriate to this thread. But then I suppose we'd say that, while it strengthens the 'proof' there is never going to be a 100%?
|
|
#29
11-05-2006, 01:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
Maybe not, but it doesn't need to be 100% to be a workable, consistent theory.
Thus far it should be taken as a certainity that evolution is a process. The quibbles, I think, come mostly from the how's and why's of evolution. I mean, as a species, we're taller and heavier than we were even several centuries ago. Unless gravity is a metric that changes appreciably over a short timespan, and I'll head off annoyed physicists by saying that it doesn't... It seems so complex and incomplete a theory to creationists or ID'ers that it's easy for them to say, because the proof is incomplete, it should follow that the theory is bunk to begin with. Which certainly is not the case.
|
|
#30
11-05-2006, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: stop demanding proof of God\'s existence
Yeah, I'm obviously not disagreeing with anything you are saying, I'm simply trying to defend madnak and others in this thread who has used the word proof to refer to things like gravity and evolution. I think they are appropriate, although they perhaps leave a little to be desired. I think a large reason for the confusion is exactly the creationists and the like obfuscating and comparing it to things like mathematical proofs.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
