General Chat / Obama Elected President

^Perhaps I can sum it up with yet another quote:

"To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn't be wrong to ask."
~Geoff Mather~

Kevin says that Hell exists. Zburns says that God exists (I'm not attacking you, just using you as an example). I think JJ said he believes in evolution. Since I can not see any of these things directly, I am not wrong in asking for proof of that these things exist. If you cannot give me an adequate answer, Hell, God, and evolution will be placed in the "nonsense" folder. If it should be brought to my attention with scientific evidence that Hell, God, or evolution exists, than I will acknowledge them as true.

Now let's please put this arguement of religion behind us. As I said before, it could go on for days, with Kevin being hard-headed, and every one else arguing various points over and over again.

First of all, this topic is quite a mess.

Secondly, I hate the fact that society groups people into different religions, and then separates religion from reality. If a person believes the following - there is a God, God created the earth and everything in it - that person believes that is REALITY, not something that fits nicely into their religion. The opposing viewpoint of course is that there is no God at all, and we as humans are a product of a big bang and the evolutionary process. These two views completely contradict each other, and to say that one is right for one person and one is right for another is completely ridiculous. It doesn't matter what you believe, there IS ultimate truth and the only a difference in opinion of what that truth is.

Thirdly, getting somewhat closer to what this topic was intended for - Obama's campaign was based around "Change." Change is the only constant in our world. I believe he won the election because he successfully convinced America that McCain isn't a big enough change from Bush, and no one can fault Americans from wanting change from our current economic crisis. If Obama's presidency brings the economic status up then great! I don't believe that will happen though, as printing more money will only make our money less valuable. I'm optimistic about the country's future, but I don't believe that it's possible for Obama to do all that he promised.

Fourthly, I could continue to ramble but I feel like this topic has broadened far too much from just being about the election.

^ Well technically with evolution you can observe it

You can observe change, which is a constant. You can't observe everything developing from a single cell and a big bang. This is theory, and not science.

This is theory, and not science.

Eh?

Science IS theory.

You're right, we can't prove 110% that evolution is utterly true. But without any contradictory evidence, and in the face of a substantial amount of supporting evidence, it is as watertight as the theory of gravity. (Which, by the way, we also can't prove. Nothing guarantees that you'll come back to Earth after you jump.)

-ACE

While obviously nothing can be proved 10% above fact, I see no comparison between evolution and gravity. A definition of science to me is knowledge based on facts, and while there can be much speculation you can't prove based on fact that the evolutionary process is true. On the other hand, every time I've jumped I've come right back down (although I am white, so I really can't jump). Gravity is something that we can test.

While obviously nothing can be proved 10% above fact, I see no comparison between evolution and gravity. A definition of science to me is knowledge based on facts, and while there can be much speculation you can't prove based on fact that the evolutionary process is true. On the other hand, every time I've jumped I've come right back down (although I am white, so I really can't jump). Gravity is something that we can test.

The fundamental hypothesis of gravity is that bodies with mass will attract one another. The fundamental hypothesis of evolution is that organisms with mutations favorable to their environment are more likely to survive.

BOTH are equally testable. To test gravity, one can place two objects apart and observe the reaction (i.e., you fall down to Earth.) To test evolution, you can observe generations of bacteria in different environments and see what changes occur in their DNA.

And it's that -- tiny changes in DNA -- that makes for evolution. It's a slow process, so obviously it can't be observed on a macro scale. However, as a theory, it fits the available evidence and is not directly contradicted. Whereas the Biblical tale of creation fits very little evidence and is contradicted on every level from the fossil record to a observable universe almost 12 billion years older than it "should" be.

There are no "facts" in science. There are observations, there is evidence, and there are theories. Nothing is a fact, because facts are by their very nature unquestioned, and the purpose of science is to question everything. Indeed, science can't prove anything, because that is not it's purpose. Science exists to *disprove* theories.

And as such, if something were to be discovered tomorrow that contradicted the theory of evolution, the theory would be modified or discarded in light of it. Just as the theory of gravity has been refined through the years from Newton's model to Einstein's.

-ACE

for one, who is to say that gravity is really the force that pulls us to the earth? Sure, you can jump, and fall down, or extrapolate that that the only reason we don't all end up in a bunch is because the earth dwarfs our own gravitational pull... but have you ever SEEN 2 apples being pulled toward each other? Ever?

See, this is the nature of science, it really is only theories, not belief. People treating it as belief are "doing it wrong".

But, a lot of these theories are backed by evidence, trials, and logic to the point where, probabilistically, the risk of relying on it being true and then being burned for it is non-existent. Which is why a lot of people are very fond of religion - because they want security and infinite values, not finite probability.

When science theorizes something that has a nearly non-existent margin of error regardless of explanation, it's the same functionally as someone telling you a man with big white beard in the sky is responsible for it. So people given the choice of doubt or conviction(a trait that, while highly valued, is oft-misused), people mostly choose to have no doubt rather than shed a hair of conviction.

Because it makes life easier than worrying about a 99.9999999999999~% margin of success.


"And one day, a man jumped, and by golly, he just kept goin..."

And conveniently, the concept of God is impossible to disprove, so religious folk don't have to trouble themselves with such uncertainty.

Note that its hilarious when someone uses the fact that God is impossible to disprove as evidence that Divine Creation is more probable than Evolution, which is disprovable (but hasn't been and is supported by an enormous body of evidence).

Nothing is disprovable, NOTHING.

You cnt disprove sasquacth, yhe lochness monster, or a giant spagetti monster,

Nothing is disprovable, NOTHING.

"This coin will land heads 100% of the time I flip it."

*Flip* Tails.

Disproved.

Also, I disproved your claim that nothing is disprovable.

^ He means the absence of anything

"This coin will land heads 100% of the time I flip it."

*Flip* Tails.

Maybe nothing exists, maybe everything is just your illusion, then that coin did not just land on tails, meaning you did not disprove anything.

As ridiculous as that sounds try and disprove that.

Nothing doesn't exist cos in nothing there is always something.

Maybe nothing exists, maybe everything is just your illusion, then that coin did not just land on tails, meaning you did not disprove anything.

As ridiculous as that sounds try and disprove that.

In my philosophy, you're always wrong. I think I can convert some people to my philosophy, too.

deleted

Maybe nothing exists, maybe everything is just your illusion, then that coin did not just land on tails, meaning you did not disprove anything.

As ridiculous as that sounds try and disprove that.

Nothing doesn't exist cos in nothing there is always something.

UH............ my brain hurts

deleted

^ Lol I took that from Mopatop's shop ( a kids tv show )