Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:27 pm

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:34 pm

DR Sheldon,
I have given numerous reasons why creation is preferable to evolution and the references that substantiate them.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:47 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon,
I have given numerous reasons why creation is preferable to evolution and the references that substantiate them.

Your own personal opinion is not evidence as I have been at great pains to point out, it seems this simple distinction of what constitutes tangible evidence and what does not is not getting through to you. What is more I have repetaedly pointed out that evolution, as one example of it's scientific veracity, has been properly validated again and again by evidence that has been peer reviewed and satisfied sciences most stringent scrutiny, and this over 150 = years.

What you claim validates creation has never once passed that level of scrutiny, not once..... I really am at a loss as to how I can simplify the fact that evolution has, on countless occasions and is still do so, amassed evidence that satisfies the best and most rigorous method of scrutinising and testing evidence we have, whilst creationism can't achieve this even once.

Creationism has no scientific basis whatever, which is precisely why it has failed to produce even one single piece of evidence that passes the same scrutiny that evolution has done again and again. What you offered was either bare claims or personal opinion. The fact that some creationist have scientific credentials is not relevant precisely because they are not satisfying the scientific process in those claims about creation but offering personal opinion.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:31 pm

This seems a useful place to start for those of us like myself whose knowledge of science is fairly basic.

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

"Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures ( hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions.[4][5] An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments.

Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable,

This is particularly relevant as it is not a requirement of religious beliefs which are nearly always not falsifiable, like creationism for instance. Hence it's dismissal by science as entirely without scientific merit.

implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested."

by snowyflake Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:32 pm

Creationism is the intellectual lazy man's position, polyglide. It suits your psychological needs and lack of education to believe in creation over science.

I would like to know what you do when you get sick? Do you attend the witch doctor, homeopathic holistic healer or are you going to a scientifically, evidence based medically trained doctor? My guess is the latter.

Do you heat your home with burning wood or are you using natural gas? Do you use electricity to power your home, computer? You can talk to anyone in the world! Doesn't science create wonderful things for your convenience, health and amusement?

So why would you take the word of a 3000 year old text over modern day scientific evidence that shows that evolution is a fact. Genesis can't even get the order of creation correctly. Light is created before the sun and plants. The sun is older than the earth but the bible states that the earth was created before the sun!

Surely, science has shown that the bible is incorrect here. If the bible is wrong in the first chapter, it loses all credibility for anything following.

by polyglide Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:19 am

HI Snowflake,
I have missed you and thought you may be ill or something but I have prayed for you every night.

We are not going to agree regarding the Bible, then let us look at what we actually know as human beings.

WE know we exist, we know that if something exists it must have come from somewhere and by some means.

We also know that for something to happen there must be a cause and an explanation for this.

I know that you are aware, even if you do not say so, that you feel intelligence must be involved in some way or another regarding all things.

Then there must be some intelligence that we are unable at this time to understand, I believe in God, I would realy appreciate what you realy feel is the answer.

kind regards and I hope you are well.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:00 pm

polyglide wrote:WE know we exist, we know that if something exists it must have come from somewhere and by some means.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Our existence can be premised based on empirical evidence, the other two are meaningless as they merely assert two things we cannot properly evidence.

We also know that for something to happen there must be a cause and an explanation for this.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Pure assumption, the first cause argument assumes that based on the fact we see causation for everything where we have established that cause. So you're claiming it as if it is known is false.

I know that you are aware, even if you do not say so, that you feel intelligence must be involved in some way or another regarding all things.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No you don't. What's more Snowyflake has always denied this as an atheist. Though I'll happily let her confirm this. Either way you've now added a second guess or assumption to your first, and thus far you've not even bothered to offer any evidence of any sort.

Then there must be some intelligence that we are unable at this time to understand,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This is another assumption, and again no evidence is presented. Hitchen's razor applies here as it does to your previous assumptions.

I believe in God, I would realy appreciate what you realy feel is the answer.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This thread was started for theists to offer logical rational and evidenced arguments if they can as to why they think their beliefs are more or equally as valid as scientifically validated empirical evidence. That the belief is held is completely irrelevant to the thread op.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:32 pm

polyglide wrote:We also know that for something to happen there must be a cause and an explanation for this.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I have a little more time now so will give a more detailed response to this first cause or 'Kalām cosmological argument' which is so favoured amongst religious apologetics since being revamped by William Lane Craig.

The first and obvious refutation, which I pointed out earlier is that it is not actually evidenced that the universe has a cause, it is simply assumed based on what we witness elsewhere, the obvious paradox between such an assumption by theists who believe in one off miracles that defy the norm is quite ironic and speaks for itself, talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.

The next flaw in this argument is so obvious you wonder it has to be pointed out. If as WLC claims and bases his entire premise on, "everything must have a cause" and therefore the universe must have a cause, then he has created an endless loop that can never end, what caused the cause and so on and so on. Of course Craig gets around this, as religious apologists so often do, with 'special pleading'. Having made an assumption that there must be a cause which he can't really evidence, he then makes a second that the cause his a deity, then a third that it's his chosen deity, and further that it's his chosen version of his chosen deity.

Now if this isn't shaky enough he then simply waves away the obvious flaw that his first cause assumption leaves him with, namely that his deity by his own logic must also have a cause, with yet another un-evidenced assumption, that despite his earlier claim that "everything must have a cause" by introducing an exception to this absolute just moments later for his deity. At this point his argument appears to be more like a tawdry magic show that is coming apart at the seems than a well reasoned and erudite philosophical argument.

He has no real evidence for either assertion of course, and though I'm no philosopher, and Lane Craig is regarded as quite an accomplished philosopher, the whole house of cards falls apart so easily here that it's almost a disappointing anti-climax. Still his polemic seems to impress some theists, though I'm at a loss to explain why.

Then there must be some intelligence that we are unable at this time to understand,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This is of course broadly what Lane Craig has done, note PG insists there must be something, we aren't troubled with evidence of course merely a god of the gaps polemic that is too feeble to warrant much refuting, so he bases his premise on mere assumption.

What is more interesting here however is that having made a claim to knowledge, PG immediately states he can't possess any such knowledge, A exists, but we don't understand anything about A. If ever a sentence embodied the empty rhetoric personified in the expression "the emperor has no clothes" this must surely be it. How one wonders can you claim to know something exists in the same sentence you admit you are unable to understand what it is?

I believe in God, I would realy appreciate what you realy feel is the answer.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I've dealt with this so I'll just point out that really is spelled with two l's. Another of those pesky typos?

by snowyflake Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:50 pm

polyglide wrote:HI Snowflake,
I have missed you and thought you may be ill or something but I have prayed for you every night.

We are not going to agree regarding the Bible, then let us look at what we actually know as human beings.

WE know we exist, we know that if something exists it must have come from somewhere and by some means.

We also know that for something to happen there must be a cause and an explanation for this.

I know that you are aware, even if you do not say so, that you feel intelligence must be involved in some way or another regarding all things.

Then there must be some intelligence that we are unable at this time to understand, I believe in God, I would realy appreciate what you realy feel is the answer.

kind regards and I hope you are well.

Thank you for your kind words polyglide. I would really like to have a discussion with you on this topic but there has to be some ground rules I think. First, it's better if you don't assume what I think or what you think I'm aware of. Secondly, I'm an honest person and so what I tell you is what I really feel and think.

Now to your post...First, I have never said nor do I think that there is an intelligence in the universe that guides all things. When talking about causation, an action does not need an intelligence to cause it. Wind blows down trees for example. Stars emit light and that light is still travelling across space long after the star has died. No intelligence needed. George W. Bush was president of the USA. No intelligence needed. Very Happy

You want to believe that there is an intelligence that guides all things because this is psychologically satisfactory to you and you feel safe in that assumption. The fact is there is no evidence of this intelligence. Until there is, I can't accept that what you believe is true.

And even if there was an intelligence guiding all things in the universe, and it turned out to be the Abrahamic god, I still wouldn't worship him or praise him. He's cocked up in a colossal fashion and doesn't deserve my praise or worship. I have questions for him though. A lot of questions.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:38 pm

Since creationism is being championed here, and this thread was specifically for theists to offer some validity, if they have any, for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and offer proper evidence for this assertion?

The first essential criteria science demands of any hypothesis or claim is that it must be falsifiable, creationism is not falsifiable since it is based on supernatural claims. This failure means it has no scientific basis whatever.

by polyglide Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:44 am

Snowyflake,
My memeory is not as good as it once was.

I have mixed your feelings regarding an intelligence being involved in creation with that of Shirina, sorry for that.

I think you have missed my reasoning.

There must be a cause for everything or it would not happen.

Because a thing responds in a certain manner indicates that it has a set intention and that intention must have a reason.

Now this morning whilst having a cup of coffee I looked out of the window and saw numerous things, all of which must have had a beginning and such are the vast differences for their existance, many depending for that existance on others and all conforming to a certain way in life that I would be an absolute idiot, in my opinion, to think that this all came about by chance.

This without considering either God or evolution or anything else just sound common sense.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:59 am

polyglide wrote: There must be a cause for everything or it would not happen.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This is just a bare claim, and neither you nor WLC have proper evidence for this assertion that Kalam cosmological argument is based on. See my earlier response:

The first and obvious refutation, which I pointed out earlier is that it is not actually evidenced that the universe has a cause, it is simply assumed based on what we witness elsewhere, the obvious paradox between such an assumption by theists who believe in one off miracles that defy the norm is quite ironic and speaks for itself, talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Because a thing responds in a certain manner indicates that it has a set intention and that intention must have a reason.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So a slug or a snail has a reason for its behaviour, it turns left instead of right because it has a reason? I'm afraid that's not very compelling, what evidence have you for this claim?

Now this morning whilst having a cup of coffee I looked out of the window and saw numerous things, all of which must have had a beginning and such are the vast differences for their existance, many depending for that existance on others and all conforming to a certain way in life that I would be an absolute idiot, in my opinion, to think that this all came about by chance.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Existence not existance (sic)

Leaving aside your main argument that everyone who disagrees with your beliefs must be an absolute idiot as it speaks for itself really, lets address your repetition of the fallacious argument that life have evolved by chance. This is not what evolution claims, as you've been told, why do you keep repeating this lie? Yes chance is involved but as I have shown billion to one odds are defied by lottery winners every day of every week, you appear to be saying this is not possible, now that is idiotic.

This without considering either God or evolution or anything else just sound common sense.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It's neither sound nor is sensible, as I have repeatedly evidenced, though ironically these kind of superstitious assertions are common enough.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:28 pm

polyglide wrote:Now this morning whilst having a cup of coffee I looked out of the window and saw numerous things, all of which must have had a beginning and such are the vast differences for their existance, many depending for that existance on others and all conforming to a certain way in life that I would be an absolute idiot, in my opinion, to think that this all came about by chance.

This sound's a lot like Hoyle's fallacy.

Hoyle's fallacy, also known as the Junkyard tornado, describes a hypothetical tornado that passes through a hypothetical junkyard resulting in chaos. Proponents of Intelligent Design erroneously assume that because the ensuing chaos does not produce some sort of complex, man-made device (for example, a Boeing 747), that various processes of evolution, abiogenesis or other origins theory are equally unlikely.

The "Tornado in a Junkyard" analogy is an example of an argument by false analogy, a logical fallacy. It is also an example of denying the antecedent: when confronted with the claim that adding energy to a system can give rise to complexity, creationists simply present an example of a situation where adding energy to a system does not give rise to complexity.

NB Polyglide should not the bold underlined below, as I am tiring of repeating this to his repeated lie that Darwinian evolution is entirely down to chance:

"The analogy is exceptionally poor when compared to the process of evolution, as one of the main mechanisms of evolution is natural selection which is non-random."

Hoyle is rendered effectively irrelevant by the anthropic principle, in that life already exists, and our universe, solar system, and planet necessarily are able to support our existence. Whether Creationism is true or Evolution is true, our world contains all necessary conditions for our existence (as evidenced by our existence), therefore the Tornado analogy is irrelevant. Further examination of our origins can be left to science (which of course rejects creationism).

NB Again Polyglide need to take notice here.

It may very well be possible for a tornado in a junkyard to, by chance, create some complex instrument (probably not a Boeing 747). Since it has not yet been demonstrated by all the tornadoes that have passed through junkyards, it can be estimated the probability of it occurring is unfathomably small. However, if over the course of billions of years trillions of tornadoes went through endless fields of junk, a functional device that accomplishes something would probably get slapped together... if only to be destroyed by another tornado moments later.

At the molecular scale, however, the probability of an accidental precursor to life rises dramatically when bombarded with solar radiation and a constantly changing environment. While proteins are incredibly complex (like a Boeing 747), amino acids, carbohydrates and lipids are relatively simple and exist in incredible abundance and similarly simple chemicals are bound to occur. Simple chemicals can eventually combine into more complex ones, and so on.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:03 pm

More about the fallacious fallacy that Hoyle premised and Polyglide seems unaware has been thoroughly discredited.

"Another problem with the "Tornado in a Junkyard" analogy is that a tornado cannot realistically be expected to supply the variety of forces needed to create a complex assembly. Given that forces generated by a tornado tend to be aligned to the tangents of the tornado's cone, it is inconceivable that a tornado would be able to apply the diametrically opposed forces needed to, for instance, insert both wings into the fuselage of the hypothetical craft, let alone install bolts in the myriad different directions, including those which can only be accessed from inside the plane (for instance, those which affix the seats to the floor).

In contrast, abiogenesis only requires that a certain variety of spontaneous chemical reactions occur within an appropriate spatial and temporal vicinity, and so a more fitting analogy would be that of a tornado tearing through a junk yard and moving all the pieces required for assembly of a 747 into one corner of the yard, given that the pieces already existed in the junk yard."

While we're here let's hear from Professor Dawkins on this logical fallacy that Polyglide posits.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expands upon Hoyle's fallacy of the tornado in a junkyard by applying it to the existence of God himself. Although creationists might argue that such an abstraction misrepresents God's nature, Dawkins primarily runs it as a thought experiment to convey the complexity of God. In light of the fact that God would not have developed from a refinement process like natural selection or the existing laws of chemistry and biology, it's probably more applicable to God anyway. Dawkins' expansion goes like this: God requires certain properties; He must know the entire universe, its past, present, future, all in implausibly precise detail, it must know the rules, how it interacts and have a deep intimate knowledge of the emergent properties within it (i.e., thoughts of every individual within the universe, not just the arrangement of neurons and their bio-electric connections) and in addition to all this, some information on how to be God. If life is comparable to a tornado running rampant through a junkyard and forming a Boeing 747 then God must be like a tornado running through a junkyard and forming the entire British Airways fleet and then some. Dawkins describes this as the "ultimate" tornado and the "ultimate" 747, but indeed, the bounds of the metaphor really can't quite get across the scale of the random organisation needed for this. A more accurate representation would be that if a tornado went through a junkyard and two scrap wheels fell within 10 metres of each other, that would be the organisation equivalent to forming life; but if the tornado ripped through the junkyard and left the entire universe in its wake, several times, that would be just a fraction of what God would need to be.

by polyglide Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:22 pm

DR. Sheldon,
Of course God, as I believe to be the creator must have properties and abilities far beyond our understanding.

That is tha whole point of faith.

I am not an admirer of Dawkins, he along with many others come up with more fairy stories than most politicians.

The chances regarding the crap metal idea belongs, along with other such nonsense in the sin bin.

What the whole nonsense does not say, where the scrap wheels etc; originated.

There is no sensible person that can think you can get something from nothing.

I have just read the scientists idea regarding the first stars that produced light.

Apparently they are some 150 million years adrift of what they first thought. That about sums up some of the scietific ideas.

As an afterthought I can go into a room and press a switch and produce light and that is because there is order and rules throughout the universe and you do not get that by chance.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:03 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
Of course God, as I believe to be the creator must have properties and abilities far beyond our understanding.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Unevidenced claim No 1

That is tha whole point of faith.

I am not an admirer of Dawkins, he along with many others come up with more fairy stories than most politicians.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Unevidenced claim No 2, and a petty ad hominem to boot.

The chances regarding the crap metal idea belongs, along with other such nonsense in the sin bin.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What the hell is crap metal, and what idea are you talking about? You've lost me completely.

What the whole nonsense does not say, where the scrap wheels etc; originated.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What wheels, what the hell are you blathering about? How you have the effrontery to claim "expertise" in debating is beyond me you can't even manage a cogent sentence man. Clearly wheels are man made, what's your point?

There is no sensible person that can think you can get something from nothing.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So you keep saying, though why you keep repeating the claim when no one has made it I don't know. It's the bible that suggests God created the universe form nothing, I have made no such claim. This strikes me as another lame attempt to use the spurious and illogical fallacy of reversing the burden of proof, or god of the gaps polemic.

I have just read the scientists idea regarding the first stars that produced light. Apparently they are some 150 million years adrift of what they first thought. That about sums up some of the scietific ideas.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Is there a cogent point here? Your debating skills aren't showing much expertise here, again, you're just rambling incoherently

As an afterthought I can go into a room and press a switch and produce light and that is because there is order and rules throughout the universe and you do not get that by chance.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No, that is because scientists have painstakingly studied evidence and produced electricity and the electric light bulb.

I see your expertise in debating has failed to stop you using the lottery winner fallacy, again. People get exactly six numbers right in a lottery draw every day of the week, by chance, a person would have to be imbecilic not to see that enormous complexity results from completely random events given enough time and repetition, now given that there are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and that there are roughly a billion galaxies in the known universe, and that the universe is 14.5 billion years old, then even a simpleton should be able to grasp just how many chances that may have offered for the universe to produce life, and once it starts evolution explains the rest.

You used a fallacious argument favoured by creationists who either too ignorant or dishonest to know better, it's called Hoyle's fallacy, as I explained above. Odd again that your expertise in debating didn't stop you citing a well known spurious polemic, very odd....

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 09, 2015 8:24 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
Of course God, as I believe to be the creator must have properties and abilities far beyond our understanding. That is tha whole point of faith.

Do you not see the irony of appealing to blind faith? In a thread entitled:

"Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?"

by polyglide Tue Feb 10, 2015 10:54 am

Dr. Sheldon,
The evidence is all around you, no one has given a sounder explanation why the universe exists than creation.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:15 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
The evidence is all around you, no one has given a sounder explanation why the universe exists than creation.

Then why despite repeated requests have you failed to cite one single shred of evidence that has been peer reviewed and validated by science? Simply making endlessly tedious claims that there is evidence when it is nothing of the sort won't fool anyone. You yourself even claimed it was based on faith. You have a shockingly bad memory.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:19 pm

If you and creationists have evidence why are you simply rehashing logical fallacies that have been thoroughly debunked like Hoyle'so fallacy or the lottery winner fallacy or argument um ad populum?

If the evidence is all around why hasn't any beenot scientifically validated and evolution refuted and replace by creationism. Why hasn't a creationist received a Nobel prize for falsifying evolution.

Take your time.....

by polyglide Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:18 pm

DR. Sheldon,
Bad boy, beenot, tut tut.

I have tried to explain why I think there is no other explanation, than instant creation of some kind.

The Big Bang, what went Bang., and where did IT come from.

If you say that IT came from somewhere, where did that come from etc;

We have not, at the present time, the capacity to comprehend a being [ to actually describe and understand] that is capable of creating all things.

That does not mean there is not such a being.

Even were evolution to be the answer to life, this would not explain where matter came from in the first place.

All that exists, must, as our understanding is at present, have always been in some form or other.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:30 pm

polyglide wrote:I have tried to explain why I think there is no other explanation, than instant creation of some kind.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes you have bless you, and it seems no amount of explaining can make you understand that your "explanations are just subjective and un-evidenced opinion. Believing something does not make it a compelling argument. Creationism has it's origins in the ignorance of bronze age superstition, there is no evidence to support it, what's more the Christian and Muslim accounts are demonstrably false as science has debunked them utterly.

The Big Bang, what went Bang., and where did IT come from.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'm not a cosmologist, but if you want to understand the BBT then read about it, but though there is evidence and a working scientific model for this it's not conclusive. The fact is even if it's entirely wrong it doesn't justify assuming bronze age superstitions about supernatural deities are true. You seem unable to grasp that it's not 'either or'.

If you say that IT came from somewhere, where did that come from etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:IT? I assume you mean the universe, in which case your leaping around and making assumptions again as I've made no claims about the origins of the universe, but again not knowing how the universe started doesn't in any way justify guessing or assumption, especially based on bronze age superstitions.

We have not, at the present time, the capacity to comprehend a being [ to actually describe and understand] that is capable of creating all things.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Dear oh dear, you first have to evidence the existence of such a being, before making any claims about it, but claiming you don't have the capacity to comprehend something doesn't entitle you to claim anything about it, I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious.

That does not mean there is not such a being.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Well a complete lack of evidence, coupled with your own admission that you don't have the capacity to even comprehend the concept of such a being doesn't sound very compelling, does it? Especially when all you have is anecdotal claimms by superstitious bronze age humans.

Even were evolution to be the answer to life,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You've lost me again, who claimed this? Evolution is as well evidenced as the theory of gravity, you really need to grasp this fact, and the only thing it explains is how the diversity of life we see came about.

EVOLUTION MAKES NO CLAIMS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE! How many times must you be told this?

this would not explain where matter came from in the first place.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Christ on a bike, I've told you repeatedly that evolution makes no claims about the origins of life. Why must you be told the same thing over and over again? Are you being deliberately disingenuous?

All that exists, must, as our understanding is at present, have always been in some form or other.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What's your point here? It sounds suspiciously like your making a 'god of the gaps' premise, we don't know anything about X so you assume it must be Y when you have no evidence for Y.

by polyglide Fri Feb 13, 2015 10:53 am

Dr. Sheldon,
I assume nothing.

I go on what is available for consideration.

I know that we are here, I know that the universe is in existance, I know the capabilities of mankind etc;

The question, or questions, being, why, how and for what.

Why, as far as a Chrsitian is concerned the reason for the earth was to have a perfect place in which to dwell.

The, why, because God thought it would be a good addition to his creations.

To, as the Bible indicates, give pleasure, not only to humans but also his many angels.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
I assume nothing.

I go on what is available for consideration. I know that we are here, I know that the universe is in existance, I know the capabilities of mankind etc; The question, or questions, being, why, how and for what.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Asking why we're here presupposes there must be a reason, that's one assumption right there. The "for what" part of it also presupposes something for which you have no evidence, and is therefore another assumption. You don't seem able to understand these simple facts.

Why, as far as a Chrsitian is concerned the reason for the earth was to have a perfect place in which to dwell.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another assumption. There is no evidence that the earth was "made perfect for life". All the evidence shows through Darwinian evolution that life evolves to suit the earth. So another assumption you've made and are apparently blissfully unaware of.

The, why, because God thought it would be a good addition to his creations.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Now you're assuming there's a god, and assuming it's your chosen version of your chosen god,, two more assumptions. You're also assuming it was all created by this deity, based on your previous assumptions. The evidence shows otherwise, and that evidence has been properly validated by the scientific process.

To, as the Bible indicates, give pleasure, not only to humans but also his many angels.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I put no store in antiquated superstitious myths from the bronze age. Especially when they are based on demonstrably erroneous claims. You'll have to do a lot better than this.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:37 pm

The bible incidentally is not validated evidence, so quoting it is just a claim and requires evidence to validate that claim. Taking biblical scripture as immutable is your prerogative, but assuming everyone else has to is not, and it's a sloppy and poor argument.

by polyglide Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:26 am

Dr. Sheldon,
There is much evidence regarding the original earth.

The continents were formed by the breaking up of the land mass. fact.

There is more evidence that the conditions for life were far better then, than now.

Darwin, uses an isolated example of how life was supposed, in his mind, to have evolved.

It is common sense to assume that when the land mass split, you would get issolated locations with just certain species involved, which would lead to abnormal results.

The present considerations taking place regarding Darwin's theories are based on the ancient genomes and are showing a different point of view than his.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 14, 2015 9:42 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
There is much evidence regarding the original earth.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That's meaningless drivel I'm afraid. "Original earth" what the hell are you talking about?

The continents were formed by the breaking up of the land mass. fact.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You love unecessary line breaks, childish ad hominem, pointless straw man polemics, and typing the word fact after your posts, FACT!

There is more evidence that the conditions for life were far better then, than now.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That's a claim, care to evidence it? Not likely as you don't seem to know the difference between a bare claim and evidence. Hitchen's razor again, so out it goes.

Darwin, uses an isolated example of how life was supposed, in his mind, to have evolved.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Dr Sheldon Cooper
Another bare claim, Hitchen's razor etc etc, sigh, this is tedious.

It is common sense to assume
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it is never sensible to assume anything.

The present considerations taking place regarding Darwin's theories are based on the ancient genomes and are showing a different point of view than his.
Hitchen's razor etc, sigh.

Darwin's scientific theory has stood up to 150+ years of scientific scrutiny, in all that time masses of evidences has been gathered that validates evolution by natural selection, not one single shred of evidence has stood up to scientific scrutiny that falsifies this. Sorry of this bursts the bubble you've created to enable your belief in bronze age fictions but hey ho.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:29 am

Polyglide wrote: The continents were formed by the breaking up of the land mass. fact.

Actually the landmass of the continents has been and still is being formed by tectonic plate movement. This is also what causes earthquakes and some times tsunamis. Your all around ability to not know things and to bluff is truly spectacular.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:21 am

Polyglide wrote:Darwin, uses an isolated example of how life was supposed, in his mind, to have evolved.

Darwin uses testable and falsifiable models, based on a lifetime of research and evidence. His work has withstood 150+ years of scientific scrutiny and never once been falsified, obviously else it would have been discarded by science. Another basic fact you seem oblivious to. So despite your dishonest claims this is a fact, and one that is easily verified by anyone honest enough to want the truth as opposed to the pseudoscience and BS of creationism. Which in stark contrast fails to qualify as science at the first most basic test because it is not falsifiable. Then unsurprisingly fails to provide one single piece of evidence that can stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of science.

Your empty rhetoric about evolution and your typing words like fact after it, is utterly laughable nonsense. It's a little sad you seem entirely oblivious to this.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:22 pm

Polyglide wrote: when the land mass split, you would get issolated locations with just certain species involved, which would lead to abnormal results.

Like the species that are unique to the Galapagos islands you mean, the very place Darwin formulated his ideas on evolution. Or the Australian continent where species unique to that land mass have evolved in isolation, and have evolved solutions unique to its environmental demands. Like the energy efficient hopping of kangaroos.

Dear oh dear you don't have even a passing knowledge of the facts about evolution. You really ought to desist from guessing about evolution, especially when your guesses are based on the most spurious creationist lies.

by polyglide Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:43 pm

DR. Sheldon,
If matters were left alone with no interferance from either man nor Satan, evolution, relative to Darwin, would not have occured.

Of course mutations etc; will occur but they never have produced an enrirely new species with different DNA.

As for evolution read ORT for the definition and explanation regarding the use of words.

by polyglide Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:00 pm

DR> Sheldon,

Just to put your mind at rest.

I fully understand what Darwin's theory involves, also the alternative of Eldridge & Gould, one over thousands of years and the others almost instantly in comparison.

I do not give either any credence because DNA does not agree with their theories.

Every living thing can be identified by it's DNA and any new life would have it's own DNA.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:18 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
If matters were left alone with no interferance from either man nor Satan, evolution, relative to Darwin, would not have occured.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It's interference not interference, and there are two r's in occurred. Save your hokum about demons for the credulous I find such notions risible. Though again Hitchen's razor applies so it requires no refutation as you provide no evidence.

Of course mutations etc; will occur but they never have produced an enrirely new species with different DNA.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That's a lie, and you have no evidence, plus science says otherwise and it does have evidence etc etc etc, we can do this forever, but I have challenged you to provide one single shred of peer reviewed scientific evidence and you have ignored every request, so your moronic claims are just getting ever louder belly laughs.

As for evolution read ORT for the definition and explanation regarding the use of words.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Absurd and dishonest semantics, since anyone can read the thread and now we were talking about Darwinian evolution. Your analogies about man made machines are therefore risible, but if you wish to continue to embarrass yourself with this guff be my guest. I'm sure you think this represents "expert debating" from you, and that your besting me, which is both funny and sad in equal measure.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:24 pm

polyglide wrote:Just to put your mind at rest. I fully understand what Darwin's theory involves,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No you don't, but I'm happy for everyone to read what you've posted and decide for themselves.

also the alternative of Eldridge & Gould, one over thousands of years and the others almost instantly in comparison. I do not give either any credence because DNA does not agree with their theories.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That just proves your claim in the first sentence is laughably wrong, and you have no grasp of Darwinian evolution at all.

Every living thing can be identified by it's DNA and any new life would have it's own DNA.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Rubbish, as usual you think facts are things you can simply make up on the spot, but by all means prove me wrong and cite the peer reviewed scientific evidence for this ridiculous claim. While you're at it tell us who is getting the Nobel prize for falsifying Darwinian evolution. You are funny, bless.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 17, 2015 6:36 pm

Getting back on topic, with the subject of falsifiability and it's significance in making the scientific process as robust and reliable as it is:

As ever Wikipedia is a goldmine...

"Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.
For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.
The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. This is often epitomized in Wolfgang Pauli famously saying, of an argument that fails to be scientific because it cannot be falsified by experiment, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!""

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:56 pm

From the US National Academy of Sciences.

""Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

This piece can be found in the article through the link after the opening quote, but I've pasted it here for reasons that should be obvious from the preceding discussions.

"Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. "

Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design." They argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call "irreducible complexity." Echoing theological arguments that predate the theory of evolution, they contend that biological organisms must be designed in the same way that a mousetrap or a clock is designed - that in order for the device to work properly, all of its components must be available simultaneously. If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly. Because even such "simple" biological structures as the flagellum of a bacterium are so complex, proponents of intelligent design creationism argue that the probability of all of their components being produced and simultaneously available through random processes of mutation are infinitesimally small. The appearance of more complex biological structures (such as the vertebrate eye) or functions (such as the immune system) is impossible through natural processes, according to this view, and so must be attributed to a transcendent intelligent designer.

However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement. Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex.

Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems. With the clotting of blood, some of the components of the mammalian system were present in earlier organisms, as demonstrated by the organisms living today (such as fish, reptiles, and birds) that are descended from these mammalian precursors. Mammalian clotting systems have built on these earlier components.

Existing systems also can acquire new functions. For example, a particular system might have one task in a cell and then become adapted through evolutionary processes for different use. The Hox genes (described in the box on page 30) are a prime example of evolution finding new uses for existing systems. Molecular biologists have discovered that a particularly important mechanism through which biological systems acquire additional functions is gene duplication. Segments of DNA are frequently duplicated when cells divide, so that a cell has multiple copies of one or more genes. If these multiple copies are passed on to offspring, one copy of a gene can serve the original function in a cell while the other copy is able to accumulate changes that ultimately result in a new function. The biochemical mechanisms responsible for many cellular processes show clear evidence for historical duplications of DNA regions.

In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists' claims. There may be alternative explanations. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that because there is no evidence that it is raining outside, it must be sunny. Other explanations also might be possible. Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one's opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested."

link... http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:22 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
If matters were left alone with no interferance from either man nor Satan, evolution, relative to Darwin, would not have occured.

The first claim is demonstrably false as evolution has occurred over billions of years and humans have only existed for 150 to 200 thousand years. Denial of the age of the earth at approximately 4.5 billion years is refuted by empirical evidence from biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and cosmology.

As I have been at great pains to point out creationism has never once been able to provide a single piece of evidence that can get past the critical peer review required to validate it, and that evolution has achieved continuously since Darwin first published The Origin Of Species by Natural Selection. The arguments creationists cite like your own make vague assertions to scientific validity, however this is entirely disingenuous as scientific opinion is entirely different from the opinion of a scientist or even a group of scientists, and until they get some evidence through the process of critical peer review then it doesn't qualify as science, or scientific evidence, in fact it fails firstly because it's claims are based on supernatural causation which is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. (see the article above from the US National Academy of Sciences).

Your claims about Satan are based entirely on faith and are both un-evidenced and un-falsifiable, so come under the epistemological Hicthen's razor:

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Hitchens's razor is actually a translation of the Latin proverb "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, but Hitchens's English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known in the 21st century.

The purpose of this thread was precisely for theists to show validity to whatever evidence they felt had any kind of parity with scientific evidence, bare un-evidenced claims will be rejected using Hitchen's razor without rebuttal.

by polyglide Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:25 am

DR, Sheldon,
The with or without evidence etc.

Of course if there is no actual evidence one can either deny or agree with the matter in question, it does not take a genious to be aware.

There are, as I am sure [almost] that you aware there are as many for as against evolution and creation regarding origins, etc;

I have no objection to evolution being quoted as relevant in many cases, as I have explained as clearly as I can, that evolution only takes place when circumstances change.

Were all things befitting the existing circumstances then all things would stay the same, things evolve to suit the present.

I can give you just as many for either side

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:48 am

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
The with or without evidence etc.Of course if there is no actual evidence one can either deny or agree with the matter in question, it does not take a genious to be aware.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You've lost me I'm afraid, there is an enormous amount of evidence to validate evolution that passes the most stringent scientific scrutiny, it increases year on year. The medical research based on evolution alone is enormous.

polyglide wrote:There are, as I am sure [almost] that you aware there are as many for as against evolution and creation regarding origins, etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Argumentum ad populum, that's a logical fallacy where someone bases an argument on a bare appeal to numbers, evolution is validated by proper scientifically validated empirical evidence, masses of it, and all passed through the process of critical review. If you want to appeal to numbers then you should read about "project Steve", which I believe I already posted. It shows that in America, a country that is vastly more religious than any other developed country, and where the creationist lobby pours billions into pedalling ID, that an infinitesimally small number of scientists deny evolution, and virtually none of them specialise in the field of biology, and absolutely none of them are experts in the field of evolution.

"NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."

Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We hope that when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "How many Steves are on your list!?"

The statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

and a link http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve[/b]

polyglide wrote:I have no objection to evolution being quoted as relevant in many cases, as I have explained as clearly as I can, that evolution only takes place when circumstances change.Were all things befitting the existing circumstances then all things would stay the same, things evolve to suit the present.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:And as I have explained your personal opinion is presented without proper scientific evidence, and again Hitchen's razor applies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

polyglide wrote:I can give you just as many for either side
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:And you're back to Argumentum ad populum again, bare appeal to numbers, an expert in debating would not keep using such a well known logically spurious argument, but since you have here's a link disproving your claim and showing the disparity between scientists who accept the fact of evolution and the tiny number who don't. http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve and since these are scientists with expertise who favour evolution it's not a bare appeal to numbers.

by polyglide Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:03 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
If thirty people said that putting your hand in a fire would burn you and one said it would not, would you put your hand in?.

If thirty people said that putting your hand in would not burn you and one said it would, would you put your hand in.

The fact is that if thousands of scientists agee on a false theory they are all wrong and if one offered the correct answer he/she would be right.

As I keep trying to tell you a theory is a theory and nothing more.

If a matter can be proven beyond doubt it becomes
a fact and nothing you claim is a fact other than it being someones opinion, it matters not on what it is based it is still theory.

by Sponsored content