I feel sorry for this kid with his narrow, warped worldview. But we were all young once. Fortunately I wasn't home schooled to keep my mind more constrained than a bonsai'd tree.

(April 24, 2015 at 6:48 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: "In my opinion" and "my findings" imply that when I say "evidence", it means that I deem it as evidence for myself.  Do I have "evidence" by your terms, no...  But I deem it as true based on the countless testimonies (of athiests as well), cults, and historical accounts to name a few.  If you have not done sufficient research on this topic, you are the one that is fooled, not me.

Opinions and testimony are not evidence, but we'll let that slide for now. Present your research to us if you feel so strongly that we've been fooled. Let's see if it stands up to scrutiny or if it's the same tired old shit you faithers usually trot out.

If the scientific community had to accept as true anything anyone ever submits, backed only by what is "evidence to them", then it would be an endless list of contradictory useless nonsense.

To establish what is actually true requires objective evidence. It requires demonstrating your findings by showing how others can reproduce them. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter what you think you know, it's of no use to anyone else I'm afraid, in a scientific sense. There must be a standard by which sound claims are differentiated from unsound ones, and this is the method.

If a scientific theory is actually wrong, anyone can disprove it. Have you considered the implications of your claims that science is corrupt? It would require nonstop patrolling of the Internet, and throughout the whole world, silencing anyone producing evidence which contradicts current theory before it got into the public domain. Do you think that is what is happening? Science has no need to silence people who have no case.

Since you asked, I have an A level in physics and chemistry, and a degree in maths. But I don't need any qualifications to be able to spot logical fallacies, and to point out the need for evidence to back claims.

(April 24, 2015 at 6:00 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: Let me be clear... I was obviously not trying to sway any opinions on this forum, as most of you have done a lot of research - much more than me. I apologize if it seemed that way. I do agree with all of your criticism; I didn't really know anything much about evolution and cosmological science before a week ago. This was written for a senior class in high school English... Of course it would not be acceptable in any sort of university science class.

It would be absolutely laughable this was seen as "proof" of a higher power. This is a 7 page research paper - even 1000 pages would not be adequate for some.

Yes I was trying to say to much at once, which makes it probably boring and aside from the topic, but this was solely written to arouse some sort of curiosity. "I'll start taking OP seriously when can correctly explain what evolution is and how it works." Indeed, this would be a mistake if you did, lol.

And yes a realize that there are most likely many fallacies if you look at my reasoning to be absolute fact. I suppose I should have done a better job in writing the essay. My purpose was to introduce skepticism on the theory, not a disproval of it all together. Like I said, that would be preposterous.

Note that when I say, "...the scientific community is corrupt", I am not saying popularized science necessarily false, at all. What I was trying to say is that the main voices control the community. The voices happen to have the same opinion, as well. My point is that there are other theories, which you might be aware of, that aren't publicized because they contradict the existing ones. My target audience for the writing was for uneducated people; people who would not know that there are other theories. I'm assuming you guys have looked at various theories on both sides, and rightly so. I'm not offended at all; I am fully aware that you guys know more. It is my personal decision, regardless of my ignorant knowledge, to believe in a deity. I sure hope you guys don't disagree with that.

Oh, and all of you seem like scientists. What are your professions and degrees?

That's not a problem. I think you may find a lot of atheists take it for granted that science is right and so may not be open to understanding the philosophical background. Once you start walking away from Science and into philosophy, the debate becomes much more open as it is possible to discuss how something can be considered true, what evidence matters and what constitutes 'proof' for an idea.

p.s. I'm not a scientist. my knowledge of natural science is fairly limited beyond a high school/secondary school level, but the philosophy of science has been of interest as an atheist.

@All (my new shorthand to say I'm not addressing anyone in particular )

Scientific knoweldge converges, because it is concerned with what is true, and the truth is not subject to opinion.

Of course there are always disputes among the community, but if a theory did not stand up to very close scrutiny, it would not be a theory.

Theories cannot and should not be rewritten every time a crackpot comes along with some unfounded claims.

@red Economist

What do you mean by "science is right"?

I'd say things that are right are science.

(To the best of our current understanding)

The fame awaiting anyone discrediting a scientific theory is I think motivation enough for an incorrect one to be debunked.

(April 25, 2015 at 3:56 am)Red Economist Wrote: That's not a problem. I think you may find a lot of atheists take it for granted that science is right and so may not be open to understanding the philosophical background. Once you start walking away from Science and into philosophy, the debate becomes much more open as it is possible to discuss how something can be considered true, what evidence matters and what constitutes 'proof' for an idea.

p.s. I'm not a scientist. my knowledge of natural science is fairly limited beyond a high school/secondary school level, but the philosophy of science has been of interest as an atheist.

Science is as right as we can make it with available evidence and is the only means we have to dispassionately discover reality.

Philosophy can be interesting but to get to the truth scientific methods must be used.

By the way I distrust the term "natural science" there is only science.

(April 24, 2015 at 6:00 pm)gomlbrobro Wrote: This is a 7 page research paper - even 1000 pages would not be adequate for some.

Actually 7 pages is preferable, if they prove the point. 1000 pages won't rescue a thesis that cannot fly.

(April 25, 2015 at 3:56 am)Red Economist Wrote: I think you may find a lot of atheists take it for granted that science is right and so may not be open to understanding the philosophical background...

For that matter, it's common to parrot "science" and "atheism" as a quasi-political opinion without even understanding science or atheism, much less any history or philosophical backgrounds underpinning their development. I've see that on AF, although I've seen it worse elsewhere. I can understand why thinking atheists get tired of endlessly repeating themselves to amuse the blockheads on the religious side, and are tempted to address their interlocutors as "retards." The religion side hardly comes short birds of paradise. But these exchanges are pretty sterile drama.

I feel a part of intellectual honesty is the practice of welcoming those who offer criticisms of your own ideas. Unfortunately, ego prefers sarcasm.

Then again, the OP looks pretty lame to me. (  my ego speaking)

(April 25, 2015 at 6:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Philosophy can be interesting but to get to the truth scientific methods must be used.

Granted, if you mean "empirical truth." Is this the only kind of truth? Oddly, science relies a great deal on a non-empirical form of truth called "mathematics."

(April 25, 2015 at 6:59 am)Hatshepsut Wrote:

(April 25, 2015 at 6:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Philosophy can be interesting but to get to the truth scientific methods must be used.

Granted, if you mean "empirical truth." Is this the only kind of truth? Oddly, science relies a great deal on a non-empirical form of truth called "mathematics."

What is non-empirical about maths?

Something exists we call that one another one of those exists together we call that two and so on. Maths is just different ways of dealing with groups of one.