Creation/evolution3

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Persons"? I thought only one of the Trinity was alleged to be human.

[Cyberman]

[Thumpalumpacus]

Go fall off a wall already!

[Cyberman]

What, again?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

An 'hypostsis' is what we base a 'theoritical' premise on.

Boru

Well, that carlifies everything.

Harpy to carl et upp fur ewe.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're a good guy, Buro -- I don't race waht teh otehrs say about yuo.

[Tonus]

I hate to break the news to you, but observation is empirical evidence. Go back and look at the definition you yourself linked.

If I am not mistaken, he used that definition to show that his personal experience served as empirical evidence because he observed the events he described. So we'll probably have to define "observation" now.

[Drich]

What did you place that faith in?

A religion? Or God? Did you do the religious thing follow the rules of a given religion or did you seek out God on his terms?

At the time I believed I was placing my faith in God and waiting to see what I should be doing.

Asking, Seeking and Knocking, as outline by Luke 11.

Their is a difference between waiting at a purposed bus stop and just waiting on the side of the road to be picked up by a bus. Putting you faith in God and waiting for him to just pick you up will usally result in silence each and every time. You have to meet Him on his terms, because it takes humility to do so, and that is the one thing we've baan asked to bring to this party over and over again.

[FatAndFaithless]

At the time I believed I was placing my faith in God and waiting to see what I should be doing.

Asking, Seeking and Knocking, as outline by Luke 11.

Their is a difference between waiting at a purposed bus stop and just waiting on the side of the road to be picked up by a bus. Putting you faith in God and waiting for him to just pick you up will usally result in silence each and every time. You have to meet Him on his terms, because it takes humility to do so, and that is the one thing we've baan asked to bring to this party over and over again.

Yeah yeah Drich I know, I just "wasn't the right type of Christian" because you're the arbiter who's figured out the real Christianity. With all due respect (i.e. none), fuck off and get back to making an utter fool of yourself.

[Drich]

Is this what you did drich?

yes

Can you give us the number one empirical evidence god gave you?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-13378.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-15622.html

Before you respond remeber we are going to be using the dictionary defination of 'empirical evidence' not the atheist/butchered version.

Think that evidence would be evidence enough for me to get to you level of faith/belief?

If it happened to you. I would think it would be more than enough for you to acknoweledge God, but I don't know whether or not it is enough to follow Him. Remember Even Demons 'believe' yet they do not follow God.

Why is it still referred to faith and belief if there is empirical evidence?

Belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

However Faith is required before belief can be established. How much faith? According to Jesus just the smallest amount. a 'Mustard seed's worth of faith.'

The problem you guys have (those Atheist without reading disorders) is that you think you understand the terms you use. Where as I have to look everything up. but, when I do I see that many of you misuse terms and misunderstand principles like how the big bang and Evolution are not supported by empirical evidence as they are just pure theory and can not be verified/vetted by following the steps in the scientific method. while belief in God literally follows the definations provided by the term "empirical evidence," and on a personal level one can apply the 'scientific method' to what God provides you.

---

And you've been asked to provide source material when you make a claim. As in your personal redefinition of the word evidence.

Can't you keep track of this discussion? I haven't proffered any "redefinition"; I've only pointed out that your understanding of your own definition is inapt.

Also, I'd like an answer to my question: don't you agree that all genocide, rape, and oppression is bad?

It's a simple yes or no.

On what grounds do you identify Merrium-Websters defination inapt? Your say so?


Your douche baggery has reached it's highest point in a long time.

---

Can't you keep track of this discussion? I haven't proffered any "redefinition"; I've only pointed out that your understanding of your own definition is inapt.

Also, I'd like an answer to my question: don't you agree that all genocide, rape, and oppression is bad?

It's a simple yes or no.

I would like an answer also. Maybe there should be a new thread asking theists under what conditions would they consider genocidr, rape and oppression a good thing

posts 525, and 535

---

We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found. For Macroevolution another more plausible explaination is the fossils attributed to evolution are just an extinct sub-species of a given phila, and for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence. Neither do. And, if you take a step back because neither of these theories can be tested or repeated therefore they do not fit the 'scientific method' (as testing and repeating a process are crutial/what is used to disqualify God.) qualifier you all have been going on about (what seperates Faith from science.) Because the big bang and the theory of marcroevolution do not fit the Scientific method, and because neither can be supported with empirical evidence, both are indeed On the fringes of science and not apart of legitmate science/applied science. Meaning it takes a rather large measure of faith to accept them.

Others can correct, me but I think we could think of the evolution and the Big Bang as applications of theories instead of theories.

In the case of evolution, we know that natural selection causes changes to a genome. We can observe this and reproduce it on a small scale in the laboratory. Evolution is simply applying this theory to explain how humans evolved from earlier forms of life.

In the case of the Big Bang, we can see the forces of the universe every day through telescopes, etc. We simply apply our theories about these forces to go back in time to the Big Bang.

EDIT: Also in both cases, we can observe the past. For evolution we can observe fossils. For the Big Bang we observe light from the past.

but again they are both just PURE theory based on logic. The application of the theory in these cases takes observiable phenominoma like the fossile record and 'old light' and assimilates them into what is believed. Nothing conclusive in the fossile records point to the viablity of Evolution, nor can the theory of evolution be vetted through the scientific method. That why it remains pure theory with no empirical evidence that supports it. Rahter it works backwards from real science. In real/applied science the observation of emperical evidence supports a theory from the ground up. In fringe sciences like with evolution and the big bang, their creators (darwin and Lemaître 'a priest') postiulated their theories LONG before we have anything to support what they thought. So in the cases of the big bang as well as evolution we are working from the top down. Meaning we have a core theory and then we look for anything to support what is already believed. (confirmation bias)

Which aagain has been attributed to belief in God.

It seems to me 'science' is the faith based system of belief while Belief in God is supported by evidence.

---

for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence.

From our observations of the cosmos, we have gathered a plethora of information (empirical data) that agrees with the the hypothesis of the big bang as presented through QM and allows us to present it as a theory. To date, there is no evidence (empirical data) that suggests otherwise. There are other hypotheses (and I even have one that I have been discussing with a couple of physicists), but again, no evidence that contradicts the present theory.

lol..

You do know that everything we have observed in space that supports our current throies come from relitivly one single point in time and in space.

That would be like trying to witness events going on 1000 years ago in China sitting from the observation deck on top of the empire state building two days from now. Yes your really high up and yes you can really see a long way, but your vantage point will not allow you to witness what it is you want to see. Why? because you are tied to one point in time and space, and what you want to see occupies another.