religion

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just asked what I'm not getting, and you aren't pointing it out. I have exactly what you said quoted, and still don't see what I'm missing. It's your job to make me understand your question if I don't supposedly understand it. I answered exactly what you asked. It is probable you that is fucking up and not asking properly what you want.

It's not his job. It would be on him if his posts lacked articulation. They don't, therefore it isn't.

You only have yourself to blame for your lack of understanding / refusal to understand.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just asked what I'm not getting, and you aren't pointing it out. I have exactly what you said quoted, and still don't see what I'm missing. It's your job to make me understand your question if I don't supposedly understand it. I answered exactly what you asked. It is probable you that is fucking up and not asking properly what you want.

It isnt my job but I will try to explain for the 4th time what the question is.

Here is the original question:

"Let me explain to you for the thousandth time in this thread what scientist do:

1. Observe something then ask a question - "I wonder how big Earth is..."
2. Think of an experiment to determine an answer to that question - "With some fancy math and measurements of shadows from two locations that are far apart I can answer this!"
3. Conduct the experiment
4. Have others repeat the experiment to confirm the results. If they match up to yours...congrats. You just solved a question using the scientific method.

Tell me, Eliseus, why do you consider this process like a religion? Do churches/cults build massive telescopes, particle colliders, or launch rovers to Mars and I am unaware of it? When was the last time you see a preacher use a microscope to answer a question during his sermon?"

The number sentences 1-4 are only there to show you exactly what the scientific method is. They werent there as an example of how to form your answer. They were there only to show you what the scientific method was.

I then ask the question, "why do you consider this process like religion?". This is what I want answered. Another way to phrase it would be, "Are those 4 steps inherently religious? If you believe so please explain why". One other way to phrase the question, "Which of these 4 things is religious or are all 4 steps religious?"

I dont know any other way to explain the damn question. If you are able to answer it properly I may even crack open a beer to celebrate.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can't observe prayer?

You can't determine an experiment to be done to determine if prayer works or not?

You can't conduct a prayer?

You can't find several people who confirm prayer works?

What am I not getting?

Ok, now that's an honest question. That's a place we can begin a discussion. I think it was already addressed, but I'll try and explain.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient recovers! They are now cancer free and living happily

3. Hypothesis: Prayer works

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will then recover

Ok, we've just completed an experiment. Now, let's repeat it just to be sure.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient dies

3. Hypothesis: Prayer does not work all of the time

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will not always recover

So, that's two experiments, and so far our success rate is 50%. Do I need to continue on so you can see where this is going?

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok, now that's an honest question. That's a place we can begin a discussion. I think it was already addressed, but I'll try and explain.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient recovers! They are now cancer free and living happily

3. Hypothesis: Prayer works

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will then recover

Ok, we've just completed an experiment. Now, let's repeat it just to be sure.

1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy

2. The patient dies

3. Hypothesis: Prayer does not work all of the time

4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will not always recover

So, that's two experiments, and so far our success rate is 50%. Do I need to continue on so you can see where this is going?

Well there lies another issue. First being, and I'm assuming you already know this, the statistical data for health related issues is an effort that has fallen by the waste side. Most, if not all data (though substantially small) proves that it doesn't work...... for healing sicknesses. Some have claimed it to be true, I'm just merely pointing out what you can find off google. Side note, let us assume God did exist, and he had some sort of expectation to help out our fellow man, would it really rely on him so much to heal the sick when there is the technology to heal the sick?

The next is although it isn't 100%, it's safe to assume that many scientific claims aren't 100% (which is funny, because that was the whole basis of a lot of arguments in this thread, and something I've specifically tried pointing out. I actually haven't claimed once that evolution is false, I've merely presented that it's possible that it's fabricated in the same sense that religion is fabricated). A majority of scientific minds could believe one thing to be so, therefore it is so. It works kind of like a majority vote you could say. It's also one reason science is always evolving, because things in life may later point out something wrong in previous conclusions.

Anyways, if you are to use what leewrong presented expecting a 100% result, then you are right. That wouldn't work since 100% of the population would receive the same results. It also depends on the question you ask, for example, if I ask if gravity is real by dropping a pen. It would be impossible to refute (does that make any sense what I'm saying, because honestly, don't know how to explain where I'm getting at better with that comment). There was no claim though that there had to be 100% result, and better yet, I would argue the hypocrisy for me to provide 100% results when he can't do anything of the sorts to the most heated argument in the thread, evolution.

I think you know what I'm saying though, but who knows, because supposedly no one understands anyone in this thread.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

let us assume God did exist, and he had some sort of expectation to help out our fellow man, would it really rely on him so much to heal the sick when there is the technology to heal the sick?

I'd be happy to repeat the experiment for you without involving the healing of the sick, if you so desire. This isn't about what prayer is used for, but if prayer itself is testable, which it is.

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A majority of scientific minds could believe one thing to be so, therefore it is so. It works kind of like a majority vote you could say. It's also one reason science is always evolving, because things in life may later point out something wrong in previous conclusions.

No one is denying this. This is the entire basis on which the groundwork of scientific methodology is predicated.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not sure what you are asking for because your question is malformed. I will try to answer it anyway.

"Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record."
I am assuming you mean transitional. As I said before, every fossil we find was or had the potential to be a transitional fossil. You seem to think that one day a fish gave birth to a full blown lizard and I am suppose to show you that fossil. That isnt what evolution claims happens. You are asking for something that is nonsensical.

Transitional fossils > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

Your right on the birth aspect, but your post doesn't imply that, it implies that it is impossible to have another species from a previous species without similarities.

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

After robot made a comment about a horse eventually become a 4-toed creature of squirrel size, you said that wasn't possible then, now it is to try and save face.

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Every species is transitional. Dogs are wolves with distinct traits they acquired through evolution (change over time). Just as wolves are canids with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Just as canids are mammals with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Evolution doesnt claim one day a cow gave birth to a chicken then all cows died off because the chicken was superior but that is exactly what you believe it seems.

Hybrids are when two distinct species are mixed to produce an offspring. That isnt evolution in even the broadest sense. Hybrids can only be made when the two species are closely related in evolutionary terms and the results are exactly what you would expect to see. Two isolated populations of animals use to be the same animal but through years and years of evolution they have changed. They have changed so much from one another they cannot produce non-sterile offspring.

Claimed distinct traits exist, but apparently they don't have to now? More saving face.

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It has been explained about 50 different ways for you but you still dont get it. Small changes over time. Add up those small changes over a long period of time. Congrats...evolution. Nothing magical or mind blowing about it.

Directed at robot for making fun of you. But the small things are still "present" according to you.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Apparently didn't exist in your previous responses, now does. I also would like to note that you have some weird infatuation with Darwin while completing ignoring quotes from him that reduce a lot of credibility towards his own opinion of evolution. The biggest basically him basically saying no know fucking knows.

[Eliseus]

[QUOTE=Eliseus;1622640]The biggest him basically saying no one fucking knows.[/QUOTE

Quoted for corrections.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

.....

"Your right on the birth aspect, but your post doesn't imply that, it implies that it is impossible to have another species from a previous species without similarities."

I didnt imply anything. I said exactly what I meant. It IS impossible to have a new species that doesnt share similarities with it's nearest ancestor. A whale isnt going to give birth to a bird (even though these have similarities still). Instead, a whale will give birth to another whale with minor differences but still a whale. Repeat that process over and over and over and over....for billions of years....that is what evolution is.

"After robot made a comment about a horse eventually become a 4-toed creature of squirrel size, you said that wasn't possible then, now it is to try and save face."

I said a horse doesnt give birth to a squirrel not that a horse cannot eventually evolve into a squirrel like creator. The point is, the horse would first give birth to horse that has some mutation that makes it .000001% more like a squirrel. Then those traits would have to be selected for. Repeat that same process a few hundred times over the course of millions of years and boom...you got yourself a squirrel-like creature.

"some weird infatuation with Darwin"

Lol, what? I havent even read the Origin of Species....imagine that. Science has long moved on since Darwin. I give the man credit but modern science has a better grasp on the mechanisms of evolution than he did. He was even...gasp...wrong on some things! It's not like all science stopped when he died or every word he uttered is infallible unchanging truth.

Science, unlike your religion, isnt ruled by edict. It is ruled by experiment and evidence. It is an ongoing process that will never have all the answers but it has the BEST answers. As soon as you answer one question, "What is an atom made of?" you have made 50 more questions, "What are the individual parts that make up and atom made of?", etc. Some may see that as a flaw in science but I think it is the best part.

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Your right on the birth aspect, but your post doesn't imply that, it implies that it is impossible to have another species from a previous species without similarities."

I didnt imply anything. I said exactly what I meant. It IS impossible to have a new species that doesnt share similarities with it's nearest ancestor. A whale isnt going to give birth to a bird (even though these have similarities still). Instead, a whale will give birth to another whale with minor differences but still a whale. Repeat that process over and over and over and over....for billions of years....that is what evolution is.

"After robot made a comment about a horse eventually become a 4-toed creature of squirrel size, you said that wasn't possible then, now it is to try and save face."

I said a horse doesnt give birth to a squirrel not that a horse cannot eventually evolve into a squirrel like creator. The point is, the horse would first give birth to horse that has some mutation that makes it .000001% more like a squirrel. Then those traits would have to be selected for. Repeat that same process a few hundred times over the course of millions of years and boom...you got yourself a squirrel-like creature.

"some weird infatuation with Darwin"

Lol, what? I havent even read the Origin of Species....imagine that. Science has long moved on since Darwin. I give the man credit but modern science has a better grasp on the mechanisms of evolution than he did. He was even...gasp...wrong on some things! It's not like all science stopped when he died or every word he uttered is infallible unchanging truth.

Science, unlike your religion, isnt ruled by edict. It is ruled by experiment and evidence. It is an ongoing process that will never have all the answers but it has the BEST answers. As soon as you answer one question, "What is an atom made of?" you have made 50 more questions, "What are the individual parts that make up and atom made of?", etc. Some may see that as a flaw in science but I think it is the best part.

So you, being a man who bases everything off of everyone else just getting what you are saying, and all the implications you have, blah blah blah. You now claim that those exact three posts you were being 100% literal in. If that is the case, I apologize, but it is more probable than not, you weren't.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you, being a man who bases everything off of everyone else just getting what you are saying, and all the implications you have, blah blah blah. You now claim that those exact three posts you were being 100% literal in. If that is the case, I apologize, but it is more probable than not, you weren't.

No, I expect motherfuckers like you to understand English or have a 4th grade reading comprehension. If you cant understand the conversation then perhaps you should take a seat.