Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

An Athiest Teacher Meets Her Match watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Weejimmie you make no sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    the first time i heard the thread, it was about a proffeser and a uni lecture, where he was quizzing a student. it was amazing though, i believe in God already, but uve got to admit its very fair point to make!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone heard of Jack Chick?

    www.chick.com

    You've got to love the crazy old cook. Did you know that not only is evolution false, but it is Jesus that holds atoms together, not the strong nuclear force! http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am a kindly chap, so I will expand.
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    All science is theory. It cannot be proved, but it can be disproved.
    Sassh said that if something "is proved to be true ...it is no longer a theory." Science doesn't work like that. Except in the very limited area of mathematics, nothing is proved. Everything is disproved. If a theory cannot be disprved it isn't scientific. The classic example- like I've said- are Newton's laws of gravitation. They had been confirmed by every observation for two hundred years. Neptune was discovered by observing apparent anomalies to Newton's laws. These could be explained by another planet in a particular place- and the planet was there. You couldn't come up with better proof. Then Einstein came up with another theory which explained more and explained things Newton didn't. This doesn't mean Einstein's theories have been proved. Einstein himself spent most of his life trying to disprove his theories and get better ones.
    Observed phenomena are combined and explained by a particular theory. Other hypotheses are drawn from it- it these hypotheses are fulfilled it is evidence for the theory, if they aren't the theory is disproved.
    Astronomers worked out the distortion of the sun's rays that would occur in a solar eclipse according to Einstein's theories. In 1919 they observed the result they expected. This did not prove Einstein was right- it simply failed to refute his theories.
    Religion is a theory- or rather many theories- with no evidence to support them. They can be and are adapted to absorb anything and so cannot be disproved.
    Look at the way every religion responds to every scientific discovery or theory for the truth of this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
    So how does having a nearly evolved eye, which only lacks the iris for example but contains all the other componants, benefit the organism?
    This is a common argument used by people who do not understand evolution.

    The basic form of it is this "Half an eye is of no use, you need a whole eye." But I could find someone who would disagree with you. I know someone who had a cataract operation. They have no lens in their eye. Without glasses they would be almost completely blind. But not completely blind, they can for instance see colours and shapes, but not focus. If they were blind they would not be able to tell they are about to walk into a wall, but with "half an eye" they can see the wall and avoid it.

    The whole point is that having half an eye is a massive advantage over an organism with no eyes. Even having a small patch of cells that are sensitive to light but that cannot detect colour or resolve an image would be a huge advantage over being completely blind.


    Also if someone gives you the good old "eye dillema" when debating evolution versus creationism you can respond by asking why all mammals have an optic nerve that terminates in front of the retina. Yes that is right, we have a blind spot, that is because our optic nerve comes from behind the eye, bursts out through the blind spot and connects to our optic cells from in front. Our optic cells don't even point the right way! They face AWAY from the lens and only pick up light that manages to penetrate all the way through the optic cell. If you have ever had an eye examination where the optician shines a bright light onto your retina you can see a network of blood vessels and nerves, that is your optic nerve covering the retina.

    Yet why do certain organisms like Octopi have a "proper eye" i.e. one with optic cells that face the light and have the retina behind the cells, they have no blind spot. Certainly doesn't bode well for humans being the perfect specially created being.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DivideByZero)
    You're kidding, right?
    Nice one sherlock! I don't suppose you solve crimes in your spare time do you?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Place your mouse on the X below and drag to the O.



    X Even though you can't see Him, GOD is there! O


    hope it works...i didnt wanna start a new thread, but thought it goes well with this one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
    No no no. Evolution is not a SCIENTIFIC principle, it is a PHILOSOPHICAL principal. And it is disproven, and it never came close to being proven.
    Natural Selection is a scientific theory. The term 'theory' does not have the same meaning in science (where it is used to mean a comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community) as it does in every day language (where it means an unproved assumption).

    This is only a semantic difference but it is crucial and is always confused by deists.

    The Modern Synthesis of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has been conclusively 'proven' and accepted beyond all reasonable doubt. Any new discoveries may lead to the theory being revised in small details but the concept of modification by descent, based on the survival and replication of the fittest and most adaptable genes, through competition over limited natural resources is a universal law of life.

    The notion that the atom was indivisable and thus the smallest kind of matter was an accurate description based on the contemporary evidence. It was essentially true and remains so. Atomic theory has only been refined and expanded to additionally explain the existence of subatomic particles. Atomic theory was not wrong in the sense that Creationism is wrong.

    Newton analysed the motion of bodies in resisting and non-resisting media under the action of centripetal forces. The results were applied to orbiting bodies, projectiles, pendulums, and free-fall near the Earth. He further demonstrated that the planets were attracted toward the Sun by a force varying as the inverse square of the distance and generalised that all heavenly bodies mutually attract one another.

    Further generalisation led Newton to the law of universal gravitation:

    ...all matter attracts all other matter with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

    Newton explained a wide range of previously unrelated phenomena: the eccentric orbits of comets, the tides and their variations, the precession of the Earth's axis, and motion of the Moon as perturbed by the gravity of the Sun. This work is as true today as it was in the late seventeenth century and is a comprehensive explanation of the data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community.

    Einstein's work did not disprove Newton's; their theories elegantly complement eachother and each can still be used effectively as and when the situation arises. Newton told us that gravity was an inverse square law force, Einstein told us it was due to the curvature of space-time.

    Perhaps god is the initiator of the conditions that drive evolution. Perhaps god was there to ignite the Big Bang. But scientific theories such as Natural Selection and the Big Bang are true.

    Creationism, however, is a falsification of science founded entirely upon belief that the Bible's account of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis is literal and true, e.g. that Jehovah created the earth in six literal 24-hour days and that all species came into existence spontaneously and persist basically unchanged. Creationism denies the theory of evolution of species and is therefore utter nonsense, since it is not a well-substantiated explanation of the available data and has been repeatedly refuted by observation and experimentation.

    Hence, Creationism can be completely dismissed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tazzie)
    the first time i heard the thread, it was about a proffeser and a uni lecture, where he was quizzing a student. it was amazing though, i believe in God already, but uve got to admit its very fair point to make!
    No it's not. As Chubb said:

    (Original post by Chubb)
    Proving something is not to do with seeing it - its to do with detecting or otherwise showing that its there - we can prove brains are there via cutting people up or ultrasound, etc. No such method exists for any God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
    The theory of evolution has foisted itself on us without ever proving itself. When someone invents a new theory he normally has to prove it to be true before it is accepted, or at least dispel the arguments and evidence against it. That never happened for evolution. It is culturally more comfortable to believe in a world that created itself, so evolution is accepted because people want to believe it, not for any objective scientific reason.
    Belief in god has been foisted on us without ever proving itself.

    The arguments and 'evidence' against Darwinian Evolution have been debated by scientists ever since the theory was first imagined, notably by Darwin himself but it has always come out as the only valid answer to the question: why do we exist?

    Alternative theories of evolution, such as inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarkian Evolution) were dismissed because they were not well-substantiated explanations of the available data and were repeatedly refuted by observation and experimentation.

    Before being so quick to dismiss evolutionary theory, you should read the following books with an open, critical mind, and try not to let your religious preconceptions interfere:

    The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...316140-1535868

    Almost Like a Whale: The 'Origin of Species' Updated - Steve Jones
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...316140-1535868

    The Blind Watchmaker - Richard Dawkins
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...316140-1535868
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Shouldn't this thread be in Debate and Discussion?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Religion is a load of nonsense, and it is the cause of all conflicts!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    No it's not. As Chubb said:
    yes ok...yes i gt what chubb said. but then look around you. How did such an intricate and complex thing such as the brain, simply be fomed by evolution. if it was formed by evolution, hwere did it come from in the first place. Not the big bang certainly, that was an explosion...explosions disrupt things...and anything they do form...how can it be so cpmlicated!!!!

    everyhting that we can do...we cant prove how we do it, we dont know everything about humans, let alone know evrything about the things around us or about animals that cant even communcate with us.


    There HAS TO BE A GREATER BEING---GOD!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tazzie)
    yes ok...yes i gt what chubb said. but then look around you. How did such an intricate and complex thing such as the brain, simply be fomed by evolution.
    Over millions of years of small changes.

    if it was formed by evolution, hwere did it come from in the first place. Not the big bang certainly, that was an explosion...explosions disrupt things...
    I hope you aren't a theoretical physicist! Your view on the big bang is so comic book.

    and anything they do form...how can it be so cpmlicated!!!!
    Because we didn't just 'pop' into existance, we evolved from very uncomplicated things.

    everyhting that we can do...we cant prove how we do it, we dont know everything about humans, let alone know evrything about the things around us or about animals that cant even communcate with us.
    We know an awful lot and none of it indicates the presence of a creator.

    There HAS TO BE A GREATER BEING---GOD!!
    Why? To fulfill your fundamental insecurity? To allow you to remove your self-guilt? They are the only good reasons for the existance of god I can see.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tazzie)
    yes ok...yes i gt what chubb said. but then look around you. How did such an intricate and complex thing such as the brain, simply be fomed by evolution. if it was formed by evolution, hwere did it come from in the first place. Not the big bang certainly, that was an explosion...explosions disrupt things...and anything they do form...how can it be so cpmlicated!!!!

    everyhting that we can do...we cant prove how we do it, we dont know everything about humans, let alone know evrything about the things around us or about animals that cant even communcate with us.


    There HAS TO BE A GREATER BEING---GOD!!
    It might be argued that god initiated the Big Bang or put the original building blocks for the origin of life on earth or is the driving force behind evolution. But the fact remains that the Big Bang and Evolution are both scientific facts.

    You clearly have no idea about what evolution is or how it works, so I suggest you read the books I recommended, so that you can have an informed opinion about the issue.

    The intricate and complex human brain is the result of millions of years of tiny, gradual changes due to survival and replication of the fittest and most adaptable genes, through competition over limited natural resources.

    Just because something is complicated, there's no particular reason to assume a 'greater being' must be behind it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am a very strong agnostic - nothing is absolutely certain, not even maths or that the planet is round.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DivideByZero)
    I am a very strong agnostic
    That is choice! Oh, I am almost weeping with laughter at that one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sisyphus)
    What a stupid post. So, the teacher used a crap argument. God still doesn't exist.
    You mean God doesn't exist for you. God doesn't exist in any named incarnation for me either, but it does for other people. That's why it is a belief.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    That is choice! Oh, I am almost weeping with laughter at that one.
    What's so funny about that? I choose not to make faith beliefs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by immortal)
    You mean God doesn't exist for you. God doesn't exist in any named incarnation for me either, but it does for other people. That's why it is a belief.
    nice one
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.