Does God Exist?

[chum1]

Same with natural selection.

it's not the same.  we can actually observe natural selection acting on natural populations.  like we can measure a selective pressure, and measure a change in some character in a population of organisms subject to that pressure.  measurements of before, after and an agent.  that's not the same at all.

I don't understand why my little, imaginary intelligent design researcher couldn't take measurements that are similar in kind.

Why isn't the fact that the complex nature of natural selection makes it difficult to predict enough for me to want to be a little cautious when talking about how often we're observing it?

Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are?  If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natrual selection?

I'm not normally skeptical.  I've just seen quite a bit of hypocrisy from scientists who are eager to belittle religious people yet are completely dismissive of the idea that the version of evolutionary theory they learned in high school can be questioned in any way.  That just makes me want to question it more.

[eastcat]

This thread has become too level headed to be in the Birther Pit...


Somebody get offended/weird..

[husserl]

Hard core believers in free will are pretty much the same as hard core believers in God.  Both point to similar kinds of "evidence" to rationalize their belief, but it's really all about faith.  Both feel that life would lose meaning without it.  Both beliefs tend to get in the way of explaining the real world.  But free willers don't usually think that people that disagree are gonna burn for eternity.  3 similarities.  1 difference.   

[Stevesie60]

Yeah, that's not really a new concept to me. As an atheist it reiterated my belief that religion was man made, so I definitely understand that idea. But if we all are made by God, I think we would have a natural idea that something bigger is going on. I have heard stories about explorers even recently going to islands in which people haven't had interaction with anyone outside of the island, but they have an idea of God/Christianity. They don't have a name for Jesus, but an idea that God had a son that died for them.

that's not unique to Christianity

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply it was. Just that there are people who have independently felt that there is some form of higher power. I think you can either say man has this need and because of this need, created God, or you can say man felt this need because since we were made my God, he put that desire in us to know Him.

[sys]

I don't understand why my little, imaginary intelligent design researcher couldn't take measurements that are similar in kind.

i don't see how.  how would an intelligent design researcher measure a character of a population of organisms, identify and measure a selective force (an instrument of design?) and then measure the change in the character after the design would be applied? 

Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are?  If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?

no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms.  that has not occurred.

I'm not normally skeptical.  I've just seen quite a bit of hypocrisy from scientists who are eager to belittle religious people yet are completely dismissive of the idea that the version of evolutionary theory they learned in high school can be questioned in any way.  That just makes me want to question it more.

i understand the impulse, but scientists are dismissive of evolution skeptics because evolution is a theory that is extremely well supported by evidence.

[chum1]

I don't understand why my little, imaginary intelligent design researcher couldn't take measurements that are similar in kind.

i don't see how.  how would an intelligent design researcher measure a character of a population of organisms, identify and measure a selective force (an instrument of design?) and then measure the change in the character after the design would be applied? 

Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are?  If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?

no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms.  that has not occurred.

I'm not normally skeptical.  I've just seen quite a bit of hypocrisy from scientists who are eager to belittle religious people yet are completely dismissive of the idea that the version of evolutionary theory they learned in high school can be questioned in any way.  That just makes me want to question it more.

i understand the impulse, but scientists are dismissive of evolution skeptics because evolution is a theory that is extremely well supported by evidence.

I don't think you're attempting to follow any longer.  I'm okay with that.

[sys]

I don't think you're attempting to follow any longer.  I'm okay with that.

gmafb.

[SterlingArcher]

Probably not, but I'm not for sure. Do you guys know?

LOL NO, what are you a jesuit or something?

[chum1]

I don't think you're attempting to follow any longer.  I'm okay with that.

gmafb.

I didn't think you addressed the questions I was asking at all.  We're too far apart.

[sys]

I didn't think you addressed the questions I was asking at all.  We're too far apart.

i addressed your points individually and with some consideration.  you're either being lazy or disingenuous.

[chum1]

I don't understand why my little, imaginary intelligent design researcher couldn't take measurements that are similar in kind.

i don't see how.  how would an intelligent design researcher measure a character of a population of organisms, identify and measure a selective force (an instrument of design?) and then measure the change in the character after the design would be applied?

For what I'm saying, I don't need the hypothetical intelligent design theory to do everything that the natural selection theory does.  We shouldn't expect it to, either.  They're different theories. 

Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are?  If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?

no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms.  that has not occurred.

Falsification is stronger than failure to observe.  It means that you've observed something contrary to the theory.

I'm not normally skeptical.  I've just seen quite a bit of hypocrisy from scientists who are eager to belittle religious people yet are completely dismissive of the idea that the version of evolutionary theory they learned in high school can be questioned in any way.  That just makes me want to question it more.

i understand the impulse, but scientists are dismissive of evolution skeptics because evolution is a theory that is extremely well supported by evidence.

I understand their psychology.  It's still hypocritical.  Plus, I was speaking from personal experience and these people were being assholes.

[kim carnes]

Can someone post evidence of evolution in this thread?  Thanks.

kim

[star seed 7]

Can someone post evidence of evolution in this thread?  Thanks.

kim

Dlew12's posting history.

[Institutional Control]

Can someone post evidence of evolution in this thread?  Thanks.

kim

I like you kim. You are the second best troll on this blog.

[Mr Bread]

Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are?  If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?

no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms.  that has not occurred.

Falsification is stronger than failure to observe.  It means that you've observed something contrary to the theory.

Numerous examples of potential (indirect) ways to falsify common descent have been proposed by its proponents. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era". Richard Dawkins adds that any other modern animal, such as a hippo, would suffice.

Karl Popper at first spoke against the testability of natural selection but later recanted, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."

[chum1]

Speaking of Popper, isn't there a way in which natural selection isn't falsifiable like many other scientific theories are?  If so, isn't this further reason for me to be cautious about talk of observations of natural selection?

no, if researchers had attempted to observe natural selection and been unable to do so, that would, through numerous such failures, constitute evidence of the lack of natural selection as a persistent force on organisms.  that has not occurred.

Falsification is stronger than failure to observe.  It means that you've observed something contrary to the theory.

Numerous examples of potential (indirect) ways to falsify common descent have been proposed by its proponents. J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era". Richard Dawkins adds that any other modern animal, such as a hippo, would suffice.

Karl Popper at first spoke against the testability of natural selection but later recanted, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."

It's all consistent.  The first two guys are talking about falsification with regard to some vague theory of evolution, which, given their examples, might as well be a theory that merely says, "things change." I was talking specifically about natural selection.  Popper was giving up a claim of his that natural selection is a tautology (which is a really interesting and challenging idea).  He conceded that natural selection can be tested in certain cases, which parallels what I said about how it can be observed in certain cases.     

['taterblast]

i am keeping this out of the tornado thread on purpose. i don't intend for this to be a religion-hating session, i'm merely asking a question.

you've probably seen this today... http://news.sky.com/story/1093711/tornado-survivor-finds-dog-during-tv-interview

it's all over twitter, facebook. it's a pretty awesome moment. very happy for that woman that she found her dog.

the reactions from people confuse me though. a brutal tornado destroys hundreds of homes, kills many people, and because we find a dog it's because "prayers were answered"? some have even said "God is good!" in response to the video. i will always struggle with this. if God is good for sparing that dog's life, then what is he for the people that died and homes were destroyed (including the lady in the video).

i will never claim to know everything, but times like these and some of the reactions i see make little sense.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

i am keeping this out of the tornado thread on purpose. i don't intend for this to be a religion-hating session, i'm merely asking a question.

you've probably seen this today... http://news.sky.com/story/1093711/tornado-survivor-finds-dog-during-tv-interview

it's all over twitter, facebook. it's a pretty awesome moment. very happy for that woman that she found her dog.

the reactions from people confuse me though. a brutal tornado destroys hundreds of homes, kills many people, and because we find a dog it's because "prayers were answered"? some have even said "God is good!" in response to the video. i will always struggle with this. if God is good for sparing that dog's life, then what is he for the people that died and homes were destroyed (including the lady in the video).

i will never claim to know everything, but times like these and some of the reactions i see make little sense.

It's no different than blaming the tornado on man made climate change. It's a religion.

['taterblast]

ok, wow.

[steve dave]

it's no different emawblast

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

I haven't heard 1 person blame this on climate change

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I haven't heard 1 person blame this on climate change

Watch the video, better than the text.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

I haven't heard 1 person blame this on climate change

Watch the video, better than the text.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/

Ok, that's 1. Any more?

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I haven't heard 1 person blame this on climate change

Watch the video, better than the text.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/democratic-senator-goes-on-anti-gop-rant-over-climate-change-as-tornadoes-hit-oklahoma/

Ok, that's 1. Any more?

You only asked for one, I give you a senator, and now you want more. 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

BOXER RINGS THE BELL ON CLIMATE CHANGE: Sen. Barbara Boxer took to the Senate floor and invoked the Oklahoma tornadoes in her speech on global warming. “This is climate change,” she said. “This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather. Not just hot weather. But extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago. —It’s been a while — the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather. And people looked at one another and said ‘what do you mean? It’s gonna get hot?’ Yeah, it’s gonna get hot. But you’re also going to see snow in the summer in some places. You’re gonna have terrible storms. You’re going to have tornados and all the rest. We need to protect our people. That’s our number one obligation and we have to deal with this threat that is upon us and that is gonna get worse and worse though the years.” She also plugged her own bill, cosponsored with Sen. Bernie Sanders that would put a tax on carbon. “Carbon could cost us the planet,” she said. “The least we could do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy.”

http://www.politico.com/morningenergy/