(July 28, 2014 at 1:53 am)Harris Wrote:

(July 26, 2014 at 3:06 pm)Tobie Wrote: Faith, in religious context, is defined as a strong belief in the tenets of a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than evidence. Atheists haven't redefined it as that, that is what the word has always meant.

No, New Atheism redefines FAITH as a property of religion only. Whereas our minds depend on FAITH of almost anything that we think can provide comfort to us in any sense. Science depends on faith, without FAITH, our minds reject any evidence. The problem with religion is that on its face value, it seemingly dictates obligations over comfort and as we do not like discomfort, we reject all or any evidence without even giving a second thought to it.

Faith is simply believing without evidence. Some faith is comfortable, some not. Faith in hell is uncomfortable. Faith in heaven is comfortable. But there isn't any evidence of either.

Knowledge is belief based upon evidence. My lack of belief in god is based on a lack of evidence and an unwillingness (or really inability) to believe without evidence. Should evidence be provided, I'll believe in god, but it won't be faith, it will be knowledge.

My belief in scientifically demonstrated ideas and phenomena is based on evidence. Unlike faith it's subject to change in the face of contrary evidence.

You don't need to have that faith to do science. You can do it anyway. If the world stopped being consistent tomorrow then we'd have to start all over, wouldn't we? The trouble would be, if the world was constantly changing from one day to the next (or one moment, or one millenium) we would end up in a position whereby nothing could be relied upon....and since we don't see that happening, and aren't in such a position - we don't have to have any faith in the proposition at all. Science already contains within it an allowance for uncertainty. What is known today may be rubbish tomorrow. We simply await the evidence that you will fail to provide. Theres a prediction which ought not to have any value if faith is the only thing tying one moment to the next....lets see how it pans out, eh?

Did you enjoy learning about your dna, btw?

(July 27, 2014 at 3:45 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Okay Harris, If evolution is false like you claim then please explain the results of this article. http://cdn.viewmixed.com/wp-content/uplo...2169-8.jpg

I am not a representative of Christianity. If a Muslim did something similar then for me between him and an atheist there was no difference.

---

(July 27, 2014 at 5:23 am)FreeTony Wrote: This whole ludicrous attempt to lump science as faith can be summed up by:

1. I'm going flying in a commercial jet later today. I have faith that it will fly and I will not die.

2. I'm going to jump off a tower later today. I have faith that I can fly by flapping my arms and I will not die.



If you think these two "faiths" are the same, then you really shouldn't be allowed out in public, even if your preacher tells you that with faith you can achieve anything.

These two faiths cannot be the same if we are not talking about a crazy person.

In the first case you asses the probability of a crash which is minimal. So you have sense of more comfort than anxiety. Therefore, although there is always a chance of a crash but because the probability shows plane crashes are rare therefore, you have faith in flying safely and willingly you take that small risk for your flying.

In the second case if you are not a crazy person then you will never jump based on the reasoning that I gave for your first case.

---

(July 27, 2014 at 9:35 am)whateverist Wrote: So has Harris left the house? Off somewhere quote mining for future use? Ah well.

Don't get upset. I love you all.

---

(July 27, 2014 at 10:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: He is your brother in FAITH

Thanks for the complement.

(July 27, 2014 at 10:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: What does he know of biology and science?
Oh, very little!!
Your insistence on this author is then the fallacy called "Argument from (or appeal to) authority".

You do not need to be a scientist like Stephen Hawking to assess the following quote to be true of false.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Page 227
The Grand Design
By Stephen W. Hawking

---

(July 27, 2014 at 3:48 pm)Natachan Wrote: I'm noting you seem to think it's either evolution or god. This is a false dichotomy. Evolution is a fact. It has nothing to do with the existence or non existence of god. Most Christians have no issue with evolution, in fact the Catholic Church, which I came from, endorses it. It was not evolution which caused me to become an atheist, or to leave the church.

You have noted correctly, I am indeed taking evolution as god. I cannot see it otherwise in the context of Atheism. If Natural Selection, which is blind, unguided, and mindless process that is able to create nature out from nothing where not a single thing is no less than a miracle then for me Natural Selection is nothing more than an alternate to god.

The difference between my God and Natural selection is that my God is Intelligent whereas Natural Selection is blind, mindless, and Unguided. As being a conscious person, I can’t take unguided, blind, and mindless Absurd as FAITH or even as Science. Sorry.

(July 27, 2014 at 3:48 pm)Natachan Wrote: Evolution is a fact. It is observable, testable, verifiable.

Please give evidence instead of giving an abstract talk.

---

(July 27, 2014 at 5:36 pm)Polaris Wrote: Both proponents for evolution and intelligent design use science to back up their faith in their own theories. Frankly, the people behind Ancient Aliens have more substance than what is passed as evolution these days.

Science is incapable to prove or disprove the existence of God. All my argument against evolution is only to show that that the concept behind evolution is not logical. Intelligent design use science to assess the logic for the existence of God. Intelligent design cannot show existence of God by using science only.

(July 27, 2014 at 6:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:This has been said countless times before on this forum, but Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the lack of belief in a god.

And it never does seem to sink in with religious morons, does it?

If you repeat million times you have money in your pocket when there is not, this repetition will not put real money out from nothing in your pocket.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:40 am)Harris Wrote: Please give evidence instead of giving an abstract talk.

We tried that. You just dismissed it all out of hand because it proved actual evolution to be real, and didn't prove your fantasy version that isn't actually evolution to be real.

Sorry, we're only obligated to provide evidence for what the theory actually states, not to pretend your ridiculous strawmen have any merit.

(July 27, 2014 at 6:17 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Gods? Ancient Aliens?

Can we please keep it "real"!
For a moment I thought I stumbled into the sci-fi channel.

Perhaps, he is pointing towards aliens in which Dawkins believe.
responding to a question:

“What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in evolution?”

Dawkins said, “Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a SIGNATURE OF SOME SORT OF DESIGNER, AND THAT DESIGNER COULD WELL BE A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE FROM ELSEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It could not have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.”

(July 28, 2014 at 3:51 am)Harris Wrote: Perhaps, he is pointing towards aliens in which Dawkins believe.

Uh, that's a lie, another willful misinterpretation initially promulgated by noted fraud Ben Stein. Dawkins was addressing a hypothetical in which only intelligent design possibilities were present, not discussing his actual views on the subject. That stupid Expelled movie cut Dawkins off mid response in order to make it sound like he said something other than he did, to which Dawkins responded on his blog by making clear his actual position, which is as I've stated.

You really need to question why you keep getting taken in by lies, Harris.

(July 28, 2014 at 2:40 am)Harris Wrote:

(July 27, 2014 at 10:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: He is your brother in FAITH

Thanks for the complement.

Cheers!

(July 28, 2014 at 2:40 am)Harris Wrote:

(July 27, 2014 at 10:18 am)pocaracas Wrote: What does he know of biology and science?
Oh, very little!!
Your insistence on this author is then the fallacy called "Argument from (or appeal to) authority".

You do not need to be a scientist like Stephen Hawking to assess the following quote to be true of false.
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Page 227
The Grand Design
By Stephen W. Hawking

Well, actually, the Law of Gravity, as understood by Hawking is not what you think it is.

Just for a moment, consider all known forces are unified (which is under scrutiny with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, see:Grand Unified Theory). Under this view, gravity is no different from electromagnetism, which is no different from the weak nuclear force, nor different from the strong nuclear force.
So, down deep, the forces and fields which have been shown to bring forth particles from "empty space" are the same forces that govern chemistry, which are the same forces that govern biology.... and are also the same forces that govern what we usually call "gravity", attraction of two masses.

So, given this piece of information, is that quote by Hawking true or false?

(July 27, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Wow! Most ignorant forum member here! Everybody crowd round while we school this idiot.

1) You got one thing right, evolution uses science. From that point on you are wrong about everything.
Intelligent design (as anybody with the smallest amount of skepticism and intellectual honesty knows) is simply a cover for creationism. What they do is not science. They do not apply the scientific method at all. They start with an assumption and then look for evidence for it and ignore the evidence against. The theory of evolution was made by observing nature and following the evidence to where it pointed. IT twists the evidence to get what it wants. Anyone who believes IT uses science is an ignorant dolt.

Evolution do not use science but it abuse science by misusing it to support conjectures. If you want to learn about Intelligent design then start with these documentaries.

http://vimeo.com/71162398

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63awtAyHdU&feature=kp
[/quote]

(July 27, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: DNA: The DNA evidence alone would be enough to prove evolution. All species share some DNA, we can tell which species are closely related to each other and which aren't. We can trace back genetic bottlenecks of species. We can tell exactly how we evolved to be more intelligent than our ape ancestors. And you have the arrogance to say that there isn't any evidence?

If you mean Evolution is about adaptation and variation in same specie then it is science. If you are talking about evolution from single embryo to complete human baby then it is science. If you are talking about evolution that can turn ape into human then it is FAITH

DNA do not and cannot produce new specie out of existing specie. DNA can produce varied specie but in same specie. Like children who are little similar and little different to their parents. Mutations rarely occur natural world and when they occur, 100% of them are injurious. Scientist have not found such beneficial mutations that makes them confident to say that new specie has born out of mutation. Neutral mutations only give variations in the same specie if not the same property.

If you see some argument that ape and human have almost similar genes and this is the evidence for ape transformed into human then these argument are not from scientists. If scientist saying something like this then he is saying not for a scientific purpose rather to support some ideology.

(July 27, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Fossil record: We can track the evolution of species through fossils. A snapshot in time, these fossils show us how many species evolved to be how they are today. Like the horse and the even toad undulates. We know that they have evolved to be marine, then terrestrial, then marine, then back to terrestrial. We can accurately predict what fossils we are going to find at different depths.

Fossil record is incomplete not because Palaeontologists have not collected sufficient amount of fossil but because fossil record lacks fossils of transitional animals. Out of millions of records, not a single fossil has been declared to be a transitional animal.

(July 27, 2014 at 6:45 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Biology: The composition of many living species all show evolution. One of my favorites is the laryngeal nerve. Its sole purpose is to control the voice box. However, it stretches from the base of the brain, loops around your aorta and then goes all the way back up to the larynx. Why could this be? Oh wait, we know why that is! Because millions and millions of years ago, our ancestors were fish-like creatures. They had no neck, which meant that the larngeal nerve didn't need to travel far at all. But then as our ancestors evolved, their bodies got longer but the laryngeal nerve had to stretch to carry out its function. This is exactly the kind of thing we would expect if a species evolved slowly over millions of years. Other examples include the sloth bear, which has lost its front teeth and the rest are very small as it has evolved to eat termites and ants. The tiger and the lion are very similar creatures to the point that they can actually breed and produce offspring, because they are incredibly closley related and share a common ancestor.

Biology by no mean can prove that one specie is transformed out from another. If you find such a claim then it is purely based on conjecture and would not be able to provide any hard scientific fact on which scientists around the world would be agreed unequivocally. Remember, not anyone who try to prove ape transform into human can run away from using conjectures, postulates and guesswork in his explanation. He cannot give hard scientific facts that can be tested in labs.

(July 28, 2014 at 6:55 am)Harris Wrote: Biology by no mean can prove that one specie is transformed out from another. If you find such a claim then it is purely based on conjecture and would not be able to provide any hard scientific fact on which scientists around the world would be agreed unequivocally. Remember, not anyone who try to prove ape transform into human can run away from using conjectures, postulates and guesswork in his explanation. He cannot give hard scientific facts that can be tested in labs.

Oh really? Then please explain the distribution of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the genome of Hominidae. Use the Quran if you can.