Has evolution been completely proven?

"Gravity is a singular observable physical fact that doesn't rely on history or the complex nature and development of living things."

So is Evolution - Evolution however is a little more complex.

I observe it in life - I see it everywhere.

It is observed - and is therefore a fact.

Thanks, I needed that laugh. You are living proof that creationists are clueless indeed.

What Popper said was NOT that to prove a theory, you establish a counter theory and prove that to be false. That would be idiocy.

His claim was that it is impossible to prove a theory true by positive outcomes of tests (no amount of white geese I see is proof that all geese are white, since there could always be a brown or other non-white one). However, a single negative outcome proves the theory in question to be false.

Read that again. A single negative outcome proves the theory in question to be false. Just the theory in question.

For example, if my theory states "All geese are white", and I see a black goose, that proves my theory wrong.

What you are saying is absolutely nonsense. Let's say I have the theory that "All geese are white". According to you, I should now establish a counter-theory, e.g. "No geese are white", prove it false (which is easily done by taking a picture of a white goose), and voila, I have proven the clearly false "All geese are white" to be a law.

Read the following slowly, and at least five times (you need it)

What Popper proved (logically) is that proving theories (empirically) is impossible. "Proof" is impossible. One can only try to prove them false ("falsify" them), by subjecting them to the most risky and demanding experiments. A single instance of the theory not working will prove it false, and each positive result does not prove the theory but rather "corroborates" (makes stronger) the theory.

Ockham's Razor: Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate

There is no "necessary falsification of the opposite theorem", you fool.

Would it hurt you to at least read an introductory book on the philosophy of science before you open your mouth and spout absolute nonsense?

Ever hear of culling sheep? Or the species that have adapted in our lifetimes (like that predatory fish that evolved rudimentary legs)?

Evolution occurs. That is a fact. The only point up for discussion is whether or not evolution is the only force at work.

Even the Catholic church regards evolution as a 'fact'.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

The thing that bothers me is that people don't understand the concept of a 'creator' isn't incompatible with the concept of evolution if they'd take five seconds to really think it through rather then just arguing in circles.

Trying to put 'intellegent design' into a biology class is a travesty. It's a philosophical concept. Evolution as a theory is not trying to identify the origins of existence it's an observable scientific phenomena, that has no bearing on whether or not the universe was created or not.

No, it's not. No serious philosopher could take the design argument seriously after Hume's arguments against it. ID is a religious concept.

All Hume managed to do is conclude empericism doesn't get you anywhere, and if you think he's the first to argue that probability after the fact isn't a valid philosophical support for the theory of 'creationism' you really need to do some more classical reading, or even better come up with your own opinions rather hten just regurgitating outdated philosophy.

As for the rest just because an arguement has been debunked doesn't mean that it still doesn't fall into the realm of philosophy. Every philosopher has gaping holes in their logic, but you don't seem to have any problem accrediting them.

Might I add you can't disprove creationism any more then you can prove it.

You obviously didn't read much of Hume. I was specifically referring to his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which effectively destroys most previous viability of the design argument.

Wanting to come up with your own opinions is no excuse for ignoring the findings of the past. Hume's refutation of the design argument still stands, and stands strongly, so ignoring it or calling it "outdated" is just stupid.

As for what's philosophy and what not... an argument ceases to be philosophical if it is no longer subjected to the essence of philosophy: rationality.

Invoking the design argument without any new argumentation comes down to ignoring all the arguments made against it, and thus invoking it based on irrational belief rather than logic. Philosophy dictates that one bases one's arguments on rational deliberation and logic, not belief, and thus argumenting based on belief is unphilosophical.

You don't need to disprove something to disregard something as unscientific, irrational and irrelevant. Since creationism fails to provide any useful predictions, it is untestable, and therefore unscientific (know your Popper). Since it is not based on any empirical inference or logical deduction, and there is a much stronger competitive theory, believing in it is irrational. Since it is both irrational and unscientific, it is irrelevant - it has no predictive, explanatory or other value, apart from providing people with an easy to understand end-all "explanation" for everything.

I guess the fact that I agreed with you in principal went right over your head. My point was that Hume's refutaion of the design arguement specifically has much more classical roots.

As for the rest I simply found it amusing that you felt the need to validate an arguement that stands on it's own by 'name dropping' a dead philosopher. Since you seem so 'well read' what would Hume say about you externally validating your arguements?

All philosophy requires you to make some sort of unfounded assumption at some point.

All philosophy fails to provide any sort of useful predictions in a scientific sense.

That's probally why it's not called science.

What would that competative theory be?

There is still hope for adult when theological discussions can still take place on an adult webmaster board and be taken seriously. I'm actually impressed !

Part of the reason why this country (USA) is becoming such a steaming pile of shit is that we've got a growing group of drooling idiots who disregard science and believe in a man in the sky showering down plagues and disasters upon the sinful masses, where higher education is considered elitest and untrustworthy, where slackjawed yokels are indoctrinated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Riley. and want our kids to think that cavemen rode around on dinosaurs and the Grand Canyon was created in "The Flood".

Fuck.

Fundamentalists = scary.

And you tried to make that point by getting his argument wrong, claiming it was "that probability after the fact isn't a valid philosophical support".

His arguments (yes, that's a plural) do have more classical roots. However, since you apparently have no clue what his arguments are, I strongly doubt that you know what those roots are.

Very few philosophers would object to referring to someone who already made the argument, and better than you ever could yourself, instead of writing a whole new book on it.

That is not only untrue, it also follows a foundationalist model of knowledge. The foundationalist model of knowledge, however, isn't used much anymore these days, since it is clear to most intelligent people that knowledge exists in a coherent body rather than in some infinite tower of stacked beliefs. Thus, the very claim that philosophy requires making unfounded assumptions is entirely meaningless.

However, what I was referring to was method rather than foundation, and it is exactly there where the difference between philosophy and belief shows. Belief is not a valid method of justifying beliefs (if it were, it would be more than a little circular), logic and rational deliberation are.

Bush thinks 51% of Americans believe he's God.


SilentKnight

Probability after the fact is the core support for 'intellegient design theory', and therefore what I chose to focus on. Thanks for playing!

So I'm right? I guess this is your way of saying you don't know where they came from originally, as evidenced by your next comment.

Ad hominem.

Nice to know you speak for philosophers everywhere.

Give me one example of a philosophy that doesn't begin with a fundamental assumption. Preferabally more specific then just a name.

You believe that the universe had no creator. You can't prove that (and please when I say creator stop trying to put a christian spin on it as I don't like words put in my mouth). Yes the arguement is completly circular, which is why I find it amusing that you say one side of the circle is any more valid then the other.

Please explain to me how the idea of a higher power is any more or less likly then the idea that there is no higher power.

Philosophy, being subject to logic, is not untestable. The sort of predictions you are talking about (it actually does make other predictions), it can't make because it's not about the empirical nature of physical reality. That's besides the point, however, since it's testable in another way, one that is more suited to its nature. (just like you would test mathematical theories by mathematical and logical analysis, rather than physical predictions)

Creationism, whether the traditional kind or the intelligent design kind, speaks about purely physical aspects of physical reality. It fails, however, to make any predictions or even to be testable in any physical way. Worse, it defies logic as well, and thereby places itself entirely out of the realm of rationality.

Most of its proponents actually do call it science, and present it as an alternative to common scientific theories.

Have you missed the entire discussion?

I like you. Can we go on a date?

So you're trying to say that all questions of origin fall outside of the realm of philosophy? You've also just said that claiming there is no higher power is just as silly as claiming there is one by inference. Thanks for making my point.

Once again I guess you completly missed my first post saying it's a travesty taht it's allowed into biology classrooms.

You're missing my point completly. I've meerly stated that creationism is just as valid as the idea that there is no creator. If you want to say that BOTH ideas are equally silly as neither is philosophically or otherwise proveable, well guess what I agree. On the other hand I would argue if you'd accept the idea that there couldn't possibally be a creator as valid then by the very circular nature of the agruement you have to accept the other side of the coin as well.

Probability after the fact is only an issue if you accept the very arguments that were refuted by Hume. However, taking Hume's arguments into account, the whole idea of probability doesn't even come into play, since design is LESS probably than the alternative (that is, no design).

Thanks for playing, and doubly so for losing.

No, you're not right, since Hume was in fact the first philosopher to present the arguments against design in the way he did, and by implying him being unoriginal in his thinking you grossly misrepresented him. Which, once again, is not surprising, since you have shown your ignorance of his arguments.

I could go into how Aristotle emphasized the non-deliberative nature of natural teleology, or Spinoza's criticisms of the design argument in his Ethics, but I'm fairly sure that would be entirely wasted on you.

That's the general idea of ridiculing someone, yes. Glad you got that point, at least.

I read many hundreds of philosophical works a year, and almost all have one thing in common: when using other philosophers' arguments, they refer to other philosophers' works rather than paraphrasing their entire theories.

You are, once again, following the foundationalist mindset. Which is one neither I nor most other philosophers today adhere to. Most contemporary philosophers reject the very concept of a "foundation" (= fundament), therefore your question is nonsensical.

However, here is an example from a time when people were still foundationalists:

I can doubt everything. However, I can not doubt that I think, since doubting implies thinking. In order for me to think, I have to be there. Therefore, cogito ergo sum.

Following Ockham's Razor, there is no reason to assume a creator. If there is no reason to, we shouldn't.

Following your argument, we should assume that anything exists that can possibly be imagined and cannot be proved to be false. That includes invisible fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and a whole lot more.

Please explain to me how the idea of no invisible purple midgets masturbating with your socks is any more or less likely than the idea that there are no invisible purple midgets masturbating with your socks.

Ockham's Razor, again.

Modern Christian beliefs (just to pick a religion at random) came about much in the same way that Ancient Greek and Roman beliefs did.

Things that could not be explained, were explained....with tall tales by authoritive figures.

"Why does it rain oh almight?"...."Why the God of rain makes it rain....he lives up there"

You figure after this shit is beating into our brains over centuries and from the time that we are old enough to comprehend that it would stick and actually be believable. I mean when I was 7 years old in catholic school I actually believed that Adam and Eve existed.....

Aren't motherfuckers still searching for Noah's Ark in some mountains or something? A story that somehow ended up in the Bible but existed century's before the Bible. Craaaazyyy Crazzyyyy world.

Questions of physical origins (all the different kinds) fall in the realms of astronomy, physics, biology, chemistry, etc. Philosophy only encompasses them as a heuristic device and (specifically the philosophy of science) as a guiding meta-science.

And no, I haven't said that "claiming there is no higher power is just as silly as claiming there is one". Because:

Ockham's Razor



Your first post has absolutely no influence on the beliefs of the majority of ID's proponents. Remember, you said "That's why it isn't called science". The fact of the matter is that they are calling it science.

However, it isn't philosophy either, as I have showed quite clearly in this thread. It's religion.

There is a subtle but distinct difference between
a) the idea that there is no creator
b) the absence of the idea that there is a creator

Not believing that something exists isn't a position that has to be defended, since it isn't a theory but rather the lack of one. The person stating that something DOES exist has to defend his position, not the other way around.

The burden of proof is on the person stating a claim. The absence of a claim, however, is not itself a claim.

Do you even understand what probality after the fact IS? It's becoming clearer and clearer that you don't.

I also find it amusing that you keep referencing Hume, when the conclusion he drews is that bottom up reasoning (emperical science) can't prove anything. What was it you said earlier?

Ironic that even one of the great empirisists concludes that nothing can be proven via the very route you're trying to repudate.

You still haven't provided an example.

Congrats. You do realise that this was Descarte's fundamental assumption yes? He build all of his latter reasoning on this buidling block. Once again, you have still yet to find a philosophy that doesn't begin with an assumption, and draws any real conclusion.

Might I add he came to the conclusion a higher power must exist.

Following Ockham's Razor there's no reason to assume there isn't either. You're trying to apply his model out of context. I take it you also never read the part where even he acknowledges that his theory doesn't not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct. (we are of course assuming atheism is the simplest theory, something that is somewhat subjective when taken this far into the abstract)

We have two opposing theories:

A higher power exists
A higher power does not exist

Ockhams Razor is meerly ment to stop us from making more assumptions then we have to. The point that you are missing is that both of these points of view are fundamental assumptions. One could even argue that OR supports creationism, as it is the much simpler of the two theories.

Why don't you think what you just said through.

Absence of a claim in this case would be agnostisism, not atheism.

By your logic saying there is not a blue car in my parking lot isn't a claim simply becasue it's a negative statement.

Whether I say there's a blue car there or not, I've made a claim.

I'm curious as to why you keep speaking as if I supported the design arguement.

Why does it matter where we came from to make evolution law ?

Because that is what the theory of evolution tries to explain where we came from.


What does evolution have to do with the big bang theory?

Our space time existance is the environment in which we came into being. Since evolutionary theory defines our existance as genetic survival of traits based on the ENVIRONMENT in which the organizm lives, anything that defines how that ENVIROMENT comes into being is relevant.

Considering that Darwin's theory of Evolution WAS/IS a counter theorem your lack of understanding about counter theorem is really scary.

Actually, you don't seem to understand "probability after the fact". The "probability after the fact" fallacy is one made by creationists when they claim life is so complex etc. that it couldn't have developed by itself, in much the same way that someone who got struck by lightning could claim that chances of that happening are so small that it didn't.

However, Hume's arguments against are separate from and prior to this whole issue, and refute the entire basis of design.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, Hume had more than one single point in his entire body of work. You single out the one about the fallacy of inductive reasoning (which is fairly famous), and fail to realize that his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" treats exactly this issue.

Ironic that someone who can spell neither "empiricist" nor "repudiate" entirely misses the point and completely randomly inserts the notion of "proof" where it doesn't belong.

Oh, wait. That isn't ironic.

Yes, I have. See below. But regardless, READ WHAT I FUCKING WROTE YOU DIPSHIT:

You are, once again, following the foundationalist mindset. Which is one neither I nor most other philosophers today adhere to. Most contemporary philosophers reject the very concept of a "foundation" (= fundament), therefore your question is nonsensical.

The very question is a nonsensical one, since contemporary philosophy has largely abandoned the concept of "foundations".

Wrong. His entire aim is to start without any assumptions, and then to build a philosophy from the logically undeniable. The logically undeniable isn't an "unfounded assumption".

Yes. He was a dualist, too. What's your point? He was wrong on just about all of his philosophical statements.

Your sheer stupidity is starting to piss me off.

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3)Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course X exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?


The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim. It is logically impossible to prove a negative claim, therefore it is unreasonable (and a commonly recognized logical fallacy) to insist on proof of negative claims.

A blue car in the parking lot adds location to the statement. That makes it a different statement altogether, since it adds the logical possibility of the claim being proven false.

I think the existence of God is just as likely as that of pink alien elephants. I don't know if they or God exist, but as long as they haven't been proven to exist I won't believe in them.

The burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement. Philosophy 101.

I'm not speaking as if you support it, I'm speaking as if you are consistently missing the point. Which you are.

And now, I'm leaving this discussion. You fail to accept some of the most basic elements of philosophy and insist on making logical fallacies (e.g. shifting the burden of proof), and arguing against someone who fails to accept logic tends to annoy me to the point where I am compelled to call names rather than try to get the point across for the 100th time.

Goodnight.

You not that stupid so stop pretending to try and justify your arguement

The opposite of "all geese are white" is not and will never be "no geese are white" it is "all geese are NOT white" that is specifically why i said "the opposite in it's entirety not just in part". There are tests for however one test is infinately more manageable than the other. to prove all geese are white to be false you need to produce one goose that is not white. To prove that all geese are NOT white, you need to prove that you have collected all geese and that they are all white.


If your interpretation was correct we would not have a single LAW, which makes the entire question moot.

The problem is that there are LAWs of science (the law of contant gravity (G) for example).

In the case of the law of constant gravity, we were able to determine all of the counter forces (air resistance) that prevented a feather from hitting the ground at the same time as the buckshot and create an enviroment where that force would not apply (vacuum) and test under that situation.
The theory of contant gravity force was the counter theorem to the theory of mass dependent gravitational force (which was the prevelent theory btw).

The test of an object falling in a vacuum had to prove one of those theories to be false (either the objects would hit the botton at the same time, or they would not).

We got the LAW of constant gravity because they hit the bottom at the same time.

I asked you to give me an example of one philosopher who has competly rejected any sort of foundation. Once again you avoided doing so.

Where did I say anything about his assumption being unfounded?

Notice that saying something is false is also a positive truth claim: you are claiming that the assertion ?X is false? is a true statement (i.e., you positively disbelieve X). For example, the claim ?leprechauns do exist? is just as positive a claim as is ?leprechauns do not exist.? Each is a claim to truth, and the burden of proof properly lies with the person making either claim.

Any truth claim is be a positive claim.

Maybe while you were 'googleing' proof for your statement (which I might add you tasteless copy pasted w\o sourcing) you should have read from a more credible source.

Saying there is no God is a positive claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you to support it. For christs sake the opinion you're argueing if often called 'positive atheism' for that very reason.

I'm not 'shifting the burden of proof' I'm pointing out the fact that you don't understand what the term 'positive statement' means.

The thing you don't seem to get here is I am not saying God exists. I am saying that it's impossible to make a positive claim on the matter either way, since niether side can prove their case.

*right-click, save as*

My One Post Only is what I beleive the Basic breakdown of this Popular among many people Discussion

Creationism/Biblism -
the times of the Torah, Historically Correct, are fundamentally a means of Control, so that the "Educated" Few could guide and direct the "Uneducated masses"
This is Proven by Prominent Jewish and Independant Academics who have studied the torah, "God" In the eyes of the writers bears 4 seperate "Manifestation" Patterns, attributable to the different Interpretations and "spin" of the different writers of the times.

The Bible, simply put was has and always will be a means of control, Christians base there whole beleifs on the Books and Writings of "Groupies" Who felt a strong bond with a Passionate man of the times, several of the books where written Many years after his death, and approx 70 years after jesus died is when the Reigning Roman Empire decided that he would be christian, and condense the Hundreds of "gospels" floating round to his Decided Most important selection,

Evolution -
Darwins Theory of evolution is a Scientific Fact, in such as it Covers the Observation of species Adapting and Evolving to their current surroundings, and shifts or "Evolutionary Milestones" may occur with drastic Climatory changes.

Species Adapt and Evolve, this is a prooven, Undisputable fact.

But Darwins theory of evolution does nothing to explain the Deeper Issue of the Origins of Life itself, be it Human or Single Celled organism it Does Not cover the idea of the big bang or anything like that.

At Least, Religion aims to put a Blanket Explanation over anything Unexplainable,
Its God
How did that happen? God did it etc etc,


Since humans have evolved and realised everything isnt god, most things are explainable and natural, we have needed to replace the "God" explanation, and since now we know God isnt the answer for Disease, natural disastors etc then we need a New Answer to the Age old complexity,
what is the origins of life?

The BIG Bang -
Wow, thats it, from Darwins discovery of Evolution, we now have an answer to the question, where did it all begin,

From Absolutely Nothing, One day, in the middle of NothingNess, there was a BIG Fucking BANG that started this whole process of life, evolution and the universe as we know it!!!

Yeah, ok, and that basically is the whole discussion,

Evolution = True

Bible/Creationism/ID = Something to beleive in, when something else cant be explained, ie- Where did we come from? God Made us!

The Big Bang Theory = A totally Speculated idea, Made up from random bollocks because our new religion/Bible , the one called "Everything can be explained by science", needs an explanation for the question -
What is the Origin of Life?

The fact remains, a beleif in a religion is ignorant, because if you break down the Root Fundamentals of ANY Religion, it breaks down to "Political spin" and the writings of normal men, interpreted by other Spin doctors and Educated religious leaders as a means of controlling there people, thats a fact, break it down yourself and you will see this too.

So that leads you to Ditching your bible based beleifs and beleiving in evolution right?
Fine, Evolution IS a scientific Fact, YES, Species do evolve, well done, you've answered,
well,
nothing really,
Species Do Evolve,

But Darwins Theory of Evolution DOES NOT Explain where evrything originated, Neither Does,
The Big Fucking Bang

No matter what you like to tell yourself about the "scientifically proven and sound" theory of the big bang when you ask yourself about the origins of life,
IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

The prooven theory of evolution should lead you to consider, that,
one day, we as humans couldnt comprehend many thing, so we made up some bullshit to pretend we knew what was going on

Today, we can explain ALMOST Anything, but still, when theres something we cant explain, we make up bullshit, like we did before, only know we back it up with speculatively prooven ideas and theoritically sound statistics that could of been what happened perhaps at one point in time, maybe,

Bollocks,

We as humans, have yet to understand many many things, and all we know now is what we have observed and understood over a short period of universal time


We are here, We live our lives, and we Know what we know,
We know that to a certain extent, its you who decides what happens to you this day and the next, but we also know that we cannot change certain inevitable occurances, certain will just happen anyway and although you may be in control of your life path you may well have a piece of raw sewage fall out a plane and land on you sunbathing one sunday afternoon and kill you, which unfortunately you cant change.

Just like you cant change the fact,
THE FACT
that you dont know and no fucker else knows where the fuck everything actually did originate from,

we may never know,

But you can make more money ;-)
And thats why your here right?

So after wasting however long it took to read my post, maybe it made you realise, that who gives a fuck about something that cannot be proven answered or discovered right now the fact is we are here and try and make the most of what little time you as a human have in existence in this universe

Proving ¬¬AxWhite(x) (which is the same as proving ¬AxWhite(x) wrong) is equally impossible as proving AxWhite(x), since they are logically equivalent.

No matter how you look at it, your argument does not make sense and is, in fact, entirely incorrect. Sorry, but you missed the point entirely."

You are wrong. Plain and simple. Science does not need a "counter theory" for every theory, which can be proven false, which would somehow prove the other theory right. That's abject nonsense, and does not make sense on any level - if only because theory x being wrong says absolutely nothing about theory y.

A "law" is a theory which has survived so many tests that people don't doubt it anymore. Nevertheless, it is only a very strong theory, and has not been proven true because the induction problem makes it logically impossible to prove empirical theories.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/...n-of-Proof.htm

Please keep track of what you are saying.

Google the word "coherentism" and you'll be sure to come up with a few thousand.

It is impossible to prove that sentient nazi trees do not exist. However, nevertheless, it would be completely irrational to either believe in them or even to believe that the claim that they exist is just as strong as the one that they don't exist.

A claim of existence takes the form:
x
A claim of non-existence takes the form:
¬x

Claiming that something doesn't exist (or isn't the case, more broadly speaking), is the very definition of a negative claim. By your definition, there are no negative claims.


Maybe while you were 'googleing' proof for your statement (which I might add you tasteless copy pasted w\o sourcing) you should have read from a more credible source.[/QUOTE]

I actually googled for examples, as you can see from the fact that I already posted examples of the same structure earlier in this thread. About faeries, if I'm not mistaken. Faeries you say I can't claim say don't exist unless I prove that to be the case, which happens to be logically impossible.

I am actually not arguing strong atheism. The position I am arguing can be summarized as follows:

1. Original position: I believe in nothing.
2. When an existential claim is made about something, if it can be strongly justified, I will believe it.
3. So far, no God has been strongly justified, so I don't believe in one.

This is a coherent, logically consistent position. It excludes Gods, faeries, alien elephants, invisible leprechauns and all things like that until the moment they are shown/justified. It does not exclude their possibility, mind you.

Now, a question to you: do you believe in invisible leprechauns?
If you don't, your argument fails.
If you do, you're an idiot.
If you can't decide, you're also an idiot... because seriously, invisible leprechauns?

It is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist. That feat requires omniscience. That doesn't mean you have to believe everything.

I was wondering how you came up with some of those examples.

I'd like to see anyone try and prove intelligent design.. what a load of crap.

The problem with the format you have described is it's purely semantic.

I could say a creatorless universe does not exist. By your definition that's a negative claim as well. My point is simply if that's the format you chose to use it's very easy to flip the burden of proof depending on how you word the statement.

You are straight.
You are not gay.

The word 'not' is pure semantics, simply depending on how you phrase the statement.

My point from the begining is that neither side of this debate can win if the burden of proof is on their shoulders. You cannot prove a God exists any more then you can prove a God does not exist, which means the 'winner' of the debate is completly dependant on the fundamental assumption that you start with.

When you use examples like pixies there's observable evidence to form an opinion with. When you get to questions of creation there is nothing we can observe or reason out that really gives us any starting point to work with, therein being the oberative differance.

This is where we seem to have a contention. In my opinion when you say you 'believe in nothing' that does not make a claim about God either way. Truly believing in nothing is making no claim about our origin either way.

When you say "I believe in nothing" you're really making the existential claim that there is no god. Saying there is no God is just as existential of a claim as saying there is a God, as both require you to make (unfounded) fundamental assumptions about the creation of the universe.

No theory of origin has been strongly justified.

Yes, but it requires you to start by assuming there is no God.

There are logically consistant opinions starting with the assumption that God exists too, the only difference is that they are based on a different starting point.

If you started with a different assumption about origin then a creatorless universe becomes the 'invisible leprechaun' in your analogy.

It is not theory x and theory y (that the logical falacy) it theory P and Theory NOT P.

You should have learned the concept of what 100% means in grade school.
If you define two theories x and y and they can overlap that it means you have not defined a P/NOT P relationship. It means that our understanding of the universe has not reached the level in which we can define the P/NOT P relationship.



A "law" is a theory which has survived so many tests that people don't doubt it anymore. Nevertheless, it is only a very strong theory, and has not been proven true because the induction problem makes it logically impossible to prove empirical theories.[/QUOTE]

Considering that the opposite of Doubt is Faith you just made arguement that the laws of the universe should be defined as laws when enough people have faith that they are true.

The theory that higher power (god, aliens) seeded the primordial ooze with cultures that were prone to multiply and EVOLVE (like lab tech do with bacterial cultures) is supported by every shred of evidence that proves that evolution by a random events. But in addition to all that emperical evidence i have the easily and repeatedly observed fact that control manipulation produces desired results more effectively that true randomness.

Every time we manipulate the genetic structure of a plant to give it a desired feature that nature did not produce randomly by itself we produce more emperical evidence that something must have influenced EVOLUTION.

If faith defined weather a theory should become a law, then the theory of evolution would never have come about. Remember that the theory of evolution was the counter theory when darwin created in. Creationism (or more specifically a subset of creationism-- biblism) was what everyone believed in. Darwin theory came about by question the assumption that God exists and asking the question is there an explaination that allows us to come into being without divine intervention. It WAS a counter theory.

It's evolution, baby!

Seriously, read Darwin. Not a book about Darwin...Darwin! He observed and documented a lot of things...and if you are going against his theory without ever reading his words, just shut up now.

Evolution is everywhere...life is pretty cool indeed, but really it's just organized rhythms and fire. Beats, and breaths, electric pulses and fires of calories...working to do the same thing over again. Missing links?! Hell yeah there are missing links..the odds of something being turned into a fossil are slim to none. The odds of us finding those particular fossils are way, way slimmer. We get good cross-sections of history through research and exploration...but it's just a scratch on the surface of what's existed all around the world over hundreds of millions of years.

Walk down in the Grand Canyon...you can have a guide point out fossils going back 600 million years. They're not the same ones around today..they change. It's a progression through the layers..it's a process. That's life. If somebody's diet change, their body changes. If somebody's environment changes, they're body changes. The same thing happens to every species of plant and animal on earth. Why do you think scientist don't study domestic garden plants? Because we changed them! Once you take a plant out of it's natural environment...it won't maintain it's 'natural' size/shape. Add in simple breeding and selection, and your end result will look nothing like it did in the wild. That's a form of microevolution...

The same way elephants in poached areas are producing more tuskless males...because the tusked animals are getting killed off for their ivory. The survival rate for a tuskless male is much higher, so there are more tuskless males mating than ever before.

If you think that some scientist, or your preacher, or some foreign leader, really has a grasp on how the world came to be...quit kidding yourself. We are putting pieces together as fast as we can..but there's way more that we don't know than do.

Study it for yourself...watch your surroundings change, then watch people change to fit them. Learn something...the universe is too expansive and dynamic to fathom...but keep trying. Just because you can't imagine that we're floating on a rock with a bunch of other freaky life forms, in one of a billions galaxies, doesn't mean it' not true.

Completely and utterly incorrect.

Darwin did not come up with evolution as a 'counter theory' to creation. It was the incredible diversity of life in the Galapagos Islands that planted the seed in his mind. It took him almost 30 years to put in on paper and get it published.

really the what was the prevelent theory about why life existed at the time.
If he assumed that God existed there would have been no need for his theory to explain the diversity of life, he would have attributed it to God and be done with it.

really the what was the prevelent theory about why life existed at the time.
If he assumed that God existed there would have been no need for his theory to explain the diversity of life, he would have attributed it to God and be done with it.

Which is what most people of his time did.

Come on man, what are you playing at? Seriously.

Any quick search on Google for a Charles Darwin biography will tell you what you need to know.

jesus theres still retards that think evolution doesnt exist?
take a moment to read how the eye works. its bizarre. the entire eye is built backwards. it is so obvious that the eye came about through evolution.

take a second to read about human DNA. in our 3gigabasepair dna complement, i think 80%+ is junk dna, dna that is there cause of old viruses in our past that incorporated their dna into ours, or transposons (jumping dna), or random garbage.

the main thing you dumbass creationists need to understand is this
when you chase a bunny, it does not run because god made it so
it runs because those that didnt do not exist today

understand that and evolution will make sense in very way, from the way guys like to have sex with fit sexy healthy girls, to why you do not eat something that looks gross.

jesus theres still retards that think evolution doesnt exist?
take a moment to read how the eye works. its bizarre. the entire eye is built backwards. it is so obvious that the eye came about through evolution.

take a second to read about human DNA. in our 3gigabasepair dna complement, i think 80%+ is junk dna, dna that is there cause of old viruses in our past that incorporated their dna into ours, or transposons (jumping dna), or random garbage.

the main thing you dumbass creationists need to understand is this
when you chase a bunny, it does not run because god made it so
it runs because those that didnt do not exist today

understand that and evolution will make sense in every way, from the way guys like to have sex with fit sexy healthy girls, to why you do not eat something that looks gross. everything exists today, from humans to birds to bacteria, to viruses to prions (protein, yes PROTEIN that replicates itself and infects hosts).. they all exist today because they CAN. and its all cause of evolution.

you want an example of evolution? read up on malaria in africa and how the population is evolving to become resistant to it, even though they are making themselves susceptible to something else (sickle cell anemia).


*sorry couldnt edit last message

i for one do not believe we came from apes, i think both species come from a 100% different gene line.

that doesnt mean i do not believe in evolution i personally believe we both evolved seperatly.

alot of people are also mixing up evolution and adaptation in this thread also.