Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[connermt]

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.

75% of the population is atheists? Sorry, but you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it.

I really don't know what you think you are talking about, but it might enhance your education if you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

Among other things if you peruse this site you might learn that it is meaningless to make conclusions about 'truth' based on percentages of who believes what. You should be able to learn that people's religious beliefs are strongly correlated with the culture in which they are raised, rather than on some notion of truth.

Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including Agnostics and Atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):

China 82% (details)
Estonia 71-82% (76,6%)
Japan 64–88% (76%)[106]
Sweden 46–82% (64%)
Vietnam 44%–81% (62.5%)
Denmark 72%
Macau 60.9%[107]
Czech Republic 54–61% (57.5%)
Hong Kong 57%[108]
France 43–64%[109] (53.5%)

Now, I'm no sort of a mathematician. However, I fail to see how these numbers, the majority of which reflect less than 75% of their separate populations, can add up to 75% of the world population, even considering the population of China.

Now, that's just me being picky, I realize.

It doesn't matter as you said "...you will have to show me the data on that one and i still won't believe it."

Uhmn...I didn't say that. Since I did not, does"it " still 'not matter?" Just curious.

Apologies. My mistake

[Star]

.

Additionally, programming the countless variables and instructions would be a monumental task.

I agree, the amount of intelligent design required is far beyond humans.

Far beyond humans? I didn't say this.

I said our technology isn't there yet but will be relatively soon. I said to expect this to change with quantum computing, but of course, you edit this part out, so you can focus on this one sentence and make it easier misrepresent my argument.

Strawman, after strawman... it never ends. We can't get anywhere in a debate like this.

[Star]

re Star Post2717--Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).

This is an example of the onslaught of appeals to authority that Sir Hamilton was defending his position against. The percentage war was not started by him because his point was that both sides of this issue do likewise and that it is a pointless position to deny this fact. He is probably correct.

I came into the argument after Sir had plagiarized a list from Examiner.com of scientists who apparently support young-Earth creation. My point was that the scientific consensus paints a much different picture, and he'll need a bigger list if he wants to convince us that a substantive portion of the scientific community supports his views. My point was not, however, that since scientists don't accept a personal god, that a personal god therefore doesn't exist. That would be fallacious, yes.

I'm not saying there's no god or that science has determined there's no god. What I'm saying is there's no evidence that there is a god or gods as religions describe.

The difference between authority and expertise is important for you to understand.

When you get your teeth cleaned, do you go to a dentist, or the kid nextdoor?

When your pets need checkups, do you go to a veterinarian, or a psychic?

When you need surgery, do you go to a surgeon, or your friend's mom?

When you need legal advice, do you go to a lawyer, or a hair dresser?

Please don't tell me they're all humans and that it doesn't matter. That's the point Sir tried making. Experts in their respected fields dedicate their lives to studying and practicing. They demonstrate a depth of knowledge in their areas of expertise and produce verifiable results.

[Star]

.

In response to my request for evidence i.e. the publication in which Crick debunks Darwinian Evolution...

I never claimed that there was a publication in which Crick debunks Darwinian Evolution. Read it again...

Since the time that Darwinian evolution was debunked by Francis Crick in 1958, the only tenable theory of evolution is Intelligent Design.

Scientists submit their work to be published for peer-review. Student was correct to ask you for this. If Crick didn't publish, then he didn't debunk evolution, and you can't expect any of us to be familiar with this work.

So the question remains, where is it?

[zeromeansnothing]

re Star Post2746--When you need legal advice, do you go to a lawyer, or a hair dresser?

Please don't tell me they're all humans and that it doesn't matter. That's the point Sir tried making. Experts in their respected fields dedicate their lives to studying and practicing. They demonstrate a depth of knowledge in their areas of expertise and produce verifiable results.


At last some real debate. Sir Hamilton is pointing here to a very obvious reality.
The respective pyramids of both scientific knowledge and theological truth are just that, pyramids. When you move to the top the air becomes increasingly thin. The believers in these two metaphysical pursuits are totally dependent on the few people guiding them. An example of this within religions would be the Pope. I am not an expert who knows who are the worlds greatest scientists.
If you believe in either of these pursuits ie science or religion you are dependant on two things in particular. Science nor religion are not democracies and the direction they take needs to be for the greater good. Religion is similar in this respect.
Scientists often parade their investigative techniques, their process and their verification and their caution regarding acceptance of new knowledge. The religions of the world have mostly decided that their knowledge and truth can best be preserved through almost pedantic preservation of their doctrine. If a church does not change at a time we see as appropriate, it is because it has been decided that this is the best approach. Much of the speculative knowledge contained within science and religion points to moments in their respective histories where their discipline lapsed.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Star Post2746--When you need legal advice, do you go to a lawyer, or a hair dresser? Please don't tell me they're all humans and that it doesn't matter. That's the point Sir tried making. Experts in their respected fields dedicate their lives to studying and practicing. They demonstrate a depth of knowledge in their areas of expertise and produce verifiable results.

Sir Hamilton is making a point worth considering here.
The respective pyramids of both scientific knowledge and theological truth are just that, pyramids. When you move to the top experts turn to geniuses The believers in these two metaphysical pursuits are totally dependent on the few people guiding them. An example of this within religions would be the Pope. I am not an expert who knows who the geniuses of science in their respective fields are. They are out there with support and sponsorship in the fields of genetics, physics etc.

If you believe or depend on the benefits of either a religious belief or the advancement of science ie medicine etc you need assurances regarding two issues in particular. Science and religion are not democracies .Scientists often parade their investigative techniques, their process and their verification and their caution regarding acceptance of new knowledge. The religions of the world have mostly decided that their knowledge and truth can best be protected through almost pedantic resistance to change. If a religion does not answer populist demands for change, it is because it has been decided that this is the best approach. Most people who follow religious beliefs accept this as you would if playing on any team. Much of the speculative knowledge contained within science and religion points to moments in their respective histories where their discipline lapsed.
If we all appeal to authority within these metaphysical pursuits , they continue to proceed unchecked. Sir Hamilton's suggestion that we can deal with these things on the ground as ordinary people is an attempt to create another control option. That is what I read here.

[no evidence no belief]

Hey everybody, the admins have decided to pardon me. I am extremely grateful and will put this opportunity to good use.

I am currently writing from st maarten. A wonderful Caribbean island. I am having the time of my life, but have very limited internet access. I will be sure to respond to each and every post on my thread once i get to the mainland in about a week.

Thanks guys,
NENB

[Danmark]

Hey everybody, the admins have decided to pardon me. I am extremely grateful and will put this opportunity to good use.

I am currently writing from st maarten. A wonderful Caribbean island. I am having the time of my life, but have very limited internet access. I will be sure to respond to each and every post on my thread once i get to the mainland in about a week.

Thanks guys,
NENB

I tried to report that post, but I couldn't find "Causing Envy" in the list of violations.
Welcome back.

[Danmark]

re Star Post2746--When you need legal advice, do you go to a lawyer, or a hair dresser? Please don't tell me they're all humans and that it doesn't matter. That's the point Sir tried making. Experts in their respected fields dedicate their lives to studying and practicing. They demonstrate a depth of knowledge in their areas of expertise and produce verifiable results.

Sir Hamilton is making a point worth considering here.
The respective pyramids of both scientific knowledge and theological truth are just that, pyramids. . . .

Wrong. In your zeal to constantly support him, you've missed Sir's point. He wrote:

Data that can be interpreted differently by other humans who are experts in the fields of cosmology, geology, physics, biology, etc. I think i [sic] will go with the experts that interpret the data in a way pleasing to my mind and you can go with the "experts" who interpret the data in a way pleasing to your mind. Like i [sic] am saying and i [sic] am going to keep on saying it....you appeal to authority and i appeal to authority.

He is not talking about a comparison between scientific truth and theological 'truth.' He is saying that within a field of science, he will not consider the merit of the scientific claim, or the credentials of the scientist. He will just go with which ever authority is "pleasing to his mind." Do you support this idea? Do think it makes a good argument to simply go with the opinion of someone who agrees with you, regardless of their qualifications within their field? This whole line of 'reasoning' started when he was called on the fact that he cut and pasted from a website with a list of names of people, none of whom were even minimally qualified as current experts in the age of the earth or in evolution. His list actually included dentists and and scientists who died hundreds of years before Darwin wrote. But his copied list did not include any theologians.

[olavisjo]

.

You claim that Darwinian evolution was debunked by Francis Crick in either 1953 or 1958. You should be able to show where and how Crick did this.

I don't think that Crick understood the implications of his discovery of DNA but I think that Darwin would have understood given that he said...

• If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.

With the discovery of the digital nature of DNA, practically every protein was exactly such a case that Darwin was unaware of.

I have shown you the opposite, that Crick held Darwin in high esteem and that Crick's joint discovery demonstrated the mechanism by which evolution functions.

I am sure that Crick held Darwin in high esteem (I have no reason to dispute that).
Crick did discover how genetic information was passed and it was like nothing that Darwin had ever imagined.
Darwin's understanding of evolution was a lot like McCulloch's in this post. McCulloch imagines evolution to be like the change that happens in language over time, Darwin himself may have had this same thought. But language is based on sound (analog information), and it can be understood even when two speakers have very different accents (Irish and American). This allows for gradual changes over time to build up to the point that it is not comprehensible to the original speakers.
These sorts of changes are not possible in digital code (we call computer programs with mutations - corrupted code). This is why Darwinian evolution will not work on a DNA platform.

Your continued claim makes it seem as if the discovery of DNA destroyed the theory of evolution when in fact it did the opposite.

It is easy to find examples of analog evolution but there are no instances of digital evolution, that is why the discovery of DNA destroyed the theory of evolution.
I would be interested in hearing your reasoning on why it would be just the opposite.