We're born with a belief in the supernatural, says scientist

CatStevens

Zulu

Zulu wrote:

I'm sorry, what are you banging on about?.

I'm talking about the big bang & the evolution theory , if they happened without God's leading,anyway let's move to that new thread

Zulu wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here

I meant if some one show me something as a proof for something I may accept it as a proof but you may not accept it as a proog get it=)

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

Yes, it's because of a process which I've heard is called "learning".

And that's why when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Asiaprod

CatStevens wrote:

I meant if some one show me something as a proof for something I may accept it as a proof but you may not accept it as a proog get it=)

It is probably a good idea to stop telling us that we might or might not accept it, and just go ahead and show us this proof. We can decide for ourselves.:)

CatStevens

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote:

It is probably a good idea to stop telling us that we might or might not accept it

I was talking generally, I mean whether a proof was to prove god or whteva
Ok, dudes, move to the new thread. see ya there

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Tar.Aldarion

CatStevens wrote:

http://www.harunyahya.com/
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_atheism.php
http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/
http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

If you believe that, you know nothing of what you are talking about, just going, 'oh yeah, sounds convincing, although I have no idea, as I've never learned about it'.


The only creationists I have seen on boards(ie the only creationists I have seen) lack understanding of science(they can't see why they are wrong scientifically, son_goku has some lovely posts on it) and lack even the understanding of 'evolution' for the most part.

It's like Wolfsbane on the creationism thread, 'Oh I have never learned about it but these links say something nonsensical that seems like sense to somebody who knows not about what they are talking about!'

Those links are outright hilarious in a sad way.

robindch

> And that's why when they say something I just don't take it as a 100%
> true discovery or whateva

Leaving aside your hip mis-spellings, researchers do not assert their findings as "100% true" as you think they do -- remember that science is not a religion. The only people who do assert themselves to be 100% accurate are religious people, whose minds tend to be closed to new information, new evidence and new conclusions.

I could explain more about how the scientific method relies upon the notion of provisionally-agreed conclusions based upon provisionally-agreed evidence and why that's a good thing, but you seem to have made all your decisions already, so I doubt there's much point.

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

researchers do not assert their findings as "100% true" as you think they do

I didn't say that, thatresearchers do so

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

robindch

> I didn't say that, that, researchers do so

Could you show me where they do, please?

What would be best is a series of verifiable quotes from a series of different researchers, all of whom are saying that they are "100% true"? The more, the better.

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

Could you show me where they do, please?

Ahahaha this is unbelievable, again I said I didn't say that researches do so, i.e. researches don't do so

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Myksyk

Be clearer then please. It's hard enough to follow you without ambiguous, poorly constructed sentences.

CatStevens

I Am
re-read it carefully

CatStevens wrote:

And that's why when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

And does the prove the inexistence of God

No it doesn't, nor does it attempt to.

The theory of evolution has never commented on, or tackled, the existence or non-existence of God, either way. Neo-Darwin biological evolution simply shows the natural processes that developed life as we know it on Earth.

Some religious people take objection to this, as they prefer to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that life could not have developed on earth without direct intervention from their god. This makes them feel special about their place in the universe.

But equally lots of Christians and Muslims accept that natural abiogensis and natural evolution are the way life developed on Earth, while still believing in a supernatural god

robindch

> Ahahaha this is unbelievable, again I said I didn't say that researches
> do so, i.e. researches don't do so

A helpful suggestion -- I think it would help your position if you were to re-read your posts before clicking on 'submit'. It should also help you to get your position clear in your own mind, as you're coming across as a bit confused.

CatStevens

robindch
or maybe you have to read the posts in order

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

robindch
or maybe you have to read the posts in order

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

The problem is your posts are confusing Cat, not least because of your colouring and your rather Yoda like way of phrasing things

You said that science changes a lot, and because of this you would not take something a scientist says at 100%

Robin is pointing out that you aren't supposed to take something a scientist says as 100% in the first place. The inability of science to give 100% definiate answers is not a failing of science, it is the way it is supposed to function

Creationists often use that fact that scientific theories change and develop as a criticism of science, as you apear to be doing also, when in fact it is one of the best things about science, and put science far above something like Creation Science which does not, and by its very nature, cannot change or develop.

CatStevens

O come on, are we going to talk about this over and over again,
I said:

And that's why when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva

he said:

researchers do not assert their findings as "100% true" as you think they do

over

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

robindch

> O come on, are we going to talk about this over and over again,

Do you accept that researchers do not claim that their findings are "100% true discovery or whateva"?

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

> O come on, are we going to talk about this over and over again,
Do you accept that researchers do not claim that their findings are "100% true discovery or whateva"?

Didn't I already answered that I'v neva claimed such a thing, OK, here ya go dude, researchers do not claim that their findings are "100% true discovery or whateva, happy now enjoy your day

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

robindch
Didn't I already answered that I'v neva claimed such a thing, OK, here ya go dude, researchers do not claim that their findings are "100% true discovery or whateva, happy now enjoy your day

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

I am glad myself and Robin could increase your understanding of the scientific method. Now maybe you will have a better respect for science

robindch

> I'v neva claimed such a thing,

You implied it in an earlier posting, when you said "when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva".

> enjoy your day

...and you too!

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> I'v neva claimed such a thing,

You implied it in an earlier posting, when you said "when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva".

> enjoy your day

...and you too!

To be fair, Cat has (rather confusingly) said only that he/she takes with a grain of salt things that he accepts researchers offer with a grain of salt.

I'm not sure why he bothered to say that he doubts what is proffered as doubtful, except that a lot of people fail to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I'm not sure why he bothered to say that he doubts what is proffered
> as doubtful, except that a lot of people fail to do so.

Yes, the point I didn't see him understanding was that the information that researchers provide isn't ever supposed to be the final truth. And you're quite right to say that very few people seem to appreciate that!

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

You implied it in an earlier posting, when you said "when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva".

when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

CatStevens

robindch

robindch wrote:

Yes, the point I didn't see him understanding was that the information that researchers provide isn't ever supposed to be the final truth.

Ok dudes, why I said so, 'cause I met many ppl and when we discuss things they bring a study or discovery or whateva, then say the Scientists said so as their discovery is 100% true some ppl do so, I'm not one of them, put the scientists aside.
God

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

Zombrex

CatStevens wrote:

robindch
Ok dudes, why I said so, 'cause I met many ppl and when we discuss things they bring a study or discovery or whateva, then say the Scientists said so as their discovery is 100% true some ppl do so, I'm not one of them, put the scientists aside.
God

Peace & Love
Yours Sincerely
CatStevens

You are prefectly correct in pointing out to them that science can only ever be 99.99999999999999999999999999999...% certain of something, that 100% truth is not possible. If they don't understand point them to the work of Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)

But the reason Robin took acception to your post was that your statements were suspiciously similar to arguments used by Creationists to attack science everyday.

Creationist used the fact that science cannot be 100% sure of something to call into question the validity of all of science, and to claim that there theories are some how equal in standing.

They think that if there is doubt, even tiny doubt, in a theory, that their alternative theories (young earth, intelligent design etc) are then equally valid theories. We don't know 100% that evolution is how life on earth developed, and we can never know 100%, but because of this they claim therefore that intelligent design is a possibility, so therefore it should be taught along side evolution.

What they fail to realise is that we don't know for certain anything really, we can only judge the likelyhood of theories to be correct. ID is possibility but then so is anything else you can make up. The likelyhood of a theory increases with the evidence supporting it, and the more it seems to fit and work in different situations. Based on this it is very very very very very very very very very likely that neo-darwin genetic evolution is the way life developed on Earth. And at the same time it is very very very very very very very very very unlikely that all life was created in an instant by a supreme being approx 10,000 years ago.

Someone can choose to believe the very unlikely possibility, and say that it is still a scientific possibility, if they wish. But then they are rejecting science, and along with rationality, in the first place, so it is a bit weird to use science to support that rejection. They want to find a way to believe what they want to believe, the scientific likelyhood of it being true is irrelivent to them.

Hope that clears up why people on this forum take acceptions to the implications behind statements like "when they say something I just don't take it as a 100% true discovery or whateva"

I'm still not sure if you did or didn't meant it the same way Creationists do, but if you did I suggest you read up on the philosophy of science so you understand why science works like that before you reject it off hand.

pH

Wicknight wrote:

You are prefectly correct in pointing out to them that science can only ever be 99.99999999999999999999999999999...% certain of something, that 100% truth is not possible. If they don't understand point them to the work of Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)

Well given that 0.9999... = 1, I'm not sure I see the point!

I'm not sure I find the reduction of things to probabilities, either useful or sensible. I am 100% certain in gravity. Maybe the details of the theory (how strong it is, what causes it) will change, but that doesn't stop me being 100% confident that I'll remain attached to this planet, and the moon will continue to orbit this planet.

Put another way, if you're not 100% sure (certain) then you're 100% - X%. Unless you can quantify that X% in a meaningful way (I'm 99.998374% certain that we evolved and here's how I calculated that number) then why bother?

How certain are you that we live on a roughly spherical planet and not a flat earth. If you're not 100% certain then exactly how certain are you and how did you figure it out?

Scofflaw

CatStevens wrote:

Ok dudes, why I said so, 'cause I met many ppl and when we discuss things they bring a study or discovery or whateva, then say the Scientists said so as their discovery is 100% true some ppl do so, I'm not one of them, put the scientists aside.

By that, I think you mean that you will ignore what science offers when it suits you to do so, because it is not necessarily 100% true. This is merely the converse of the fallacy of taking everything science says as absolute, permanent truths.

By the way, it is possible that science is 100% right about something - just not provable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

pH wrote:

I am 100% certain in gravity. Maybe the details of the theory (how strong it is, what causes it) will change, but that doesn't stop me being 100% confident that I'll remain attached to this planet, and the moon will continue to orbit this planet.

You are thinking about it in everyday laymans terms, which is fine.

But it is not scientifically possible to state, for 100% certain, that gravity will still function exactly the same tomorrow as it does today. It is simple a very reasonable assumption, based on all evdience up to this point, that it still will.

pH wrote:

If you're not 100% certain then exactly how certain are you and how did you figure it out?

It doesn't matter exactly how certain I am.

You don't need to quantifiy X so long as you realise it can't be 100%

pH

Wicknight wrote:

You don't need to quantifiy X so long as you realise it can't be 100%

How very paranormal and unscientific of you!

"X exists, I can't quantify it or measure it but take my word for it - it exists!"

Dades

Read this on the DART this morning, from Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Reminded me of the talk here of late of what we can and can't know...

All we have to believe with is our senses: the tools we use to perceive the world, our sight, our touch, our memory. If they lie to us then nothing can be trusted. And even if we do not believe, then we still cannot travel in any other way than the road our senses show us; and we must walk that road to the end.

The bottom line is we are stuck with what we can perceive whether we like it or not.