Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-16-2019 12:25 AM
25 online now:
DrJones*, edge, GDR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Pressie (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,807 Year: 11,843/19,786 Month: 1,624/2,641 Week: 133/708 Day: 0/67 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in God is scientific.
Zift Ylrhavic Resfear
Junior Member (Idle past 2136 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 05-14-2013


Message 254 of 262 (699231)
05-16-2013 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by divermike1974
04-03-2013 3:57 AM


My question is why isn't the human belief in God classed as scientific? When the most powerful computer network in the known universe comes to the answer 'God'?

Scientific :
relating to science, or using the organized methods of science;
careful and using a system or method.
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/...ionary/british/scientific)

Science :
the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/science)

Belief :
The feeling of being certain that something exists or is true; something that you believe
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/belief)

A belief is a feeling, hence not something physical or a method either. Since science on the contrary deals only with the physical world and methods, we can say than belief in god isn't scientific.

Also, no matter how complex the computer, if the programmation is bad or if it's its purpose then the result is wrong. The programming of our brain is done when we learn things, if you learn than 1+1=3 then you'll give that answer if we ask you that question. No matter how intelligent you are. Of course we won't take for granted something like that, but only because we learned than everything we are told isn't always true. If you take a child not knowing math yet and what a lie is, then you'll easily make him believe than 1+1 = 3.

May i know to what subject this topic derived to?^^


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by divermike1974, posted 04-03-2013 3:57 AM divermike1974 has not yet responded

    
Zift Ylrhavic Resfear
Junior Member (Idle past 2136 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 05-14-2013


Message 255 of 262 (699234)
05-16-2013 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Ossat
04-12-2013 5:14 AM


I agree, some of the variety is not planned, but like I said, not cumulative changes will ever create new species, nor they have done in the past, as evolutionists think

The problem here is the duration science existed. It has been around for a few centuries at most. But the evolution process takes milleniums to operate. Meaning we can't access to live examples yet and before a long time.

The closest thing we have from evolved species are drug resistant bactery or pesticide resistant insects. They prove than changing is possible for living beings. Another proof are the fluorescent and bigger organism we were able to create. From there to thinking some modifications like the color of the skin, the size and other such little details can happen naturally (which, by the way, we can see in humans themselves - do you think the albinos came from other albinos?), you don't need great effort.
What keeps us from thinking than through cumulating, those alterations will end up forming new species from the ones already existing?
What is the difference between a cat and a linx? A fox and a wolf? A rabbit and a hare? And a bird from another? I'm not very knowledgable about it, but at first glance only the size and color seems to differ, and probably some minor other details.

On a slightly different matter, the apparition of legs as well as lungs and other organs needed for terrestrial live little by little may seems impossible. That's right, how could an animal with such primitive and inefficient organs escape a wolf or any other predator?
To answer that, you need to keep in mind than the first ones to ever aquire those caracteristics were also the first ones to get to land. Meaning no predator. So plants, not needing living food, were probably the first to get out of the water. Then came some herbivorous animals that could then escape their predators while still finding food. And finally the predator themselves could move onto land to escape bigger predator and still have some food. The faster runner would then escape the predator, the slower is catched, or the predator starve. The only one reproducing being the faster runner, the legs got optimised through years upon years of running.

Is such a way of thinking about how it happened that hard to accept?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Ossat, posted 04-12-2013 5:14 AM Ossat has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019