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?

[Star]

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

I've been debating on message boards for more than a decade. I don't know if you're trolling to get a rise out of us, or you're honestly just a newbie who doesn't know better, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide some personal advice...

You're on a message board and aren't entitled to privacy unless you use the Private Message (PM) feature. When you write on message boards, you have an audience. Many people read what you write. Assume everyone is watching.

You plagiarized Examiner, a trashy source of information, and that's why you were reluctant to tell us where you copy and pasted your list from. I wouldn't do that anymore. Post a link.

As the claimant, you bear the burden of citing your sources, or posting a link. You don't have to, of course, but don't expect credibility, especially when you copy and paste the work of others.

Merry Christmas.

[zeromeansnothing]

I am very disappointed with developments on this thread. Is this inflammatory? It is one line in length and little more than a grand hurray for the winning side.

re Star Post 2684--Are you for real? How is it possible for an English-speaking adult to not know the difference between "absolutely certain" and "highly likely"?




The gap between absolutely certain and highly likely, in this case, is a hiding place for a person who refuses to offer a definitive opinion. That is why I included Danmark's link to the maths involved here ie over 8 billion. If there are 8.8 billion chances of replicating something then it is absolutely certain to happen . It is the same thing. How can it not be? What is going on here. Have I been reported for disagreeing with a strongly stated opinion? Am I guilty of any crime?
The odds involved are 1 : 8,800,000,000

[FarWanderer]

.

Should we also agree that this supposed external cause hasn't existed an infinite amount of time, because that "seems rational"?

Seems rational to me. How long has the concept of the number three existed? It seems to just exist, time or no time.

The concept of the number three also doesn't seem to cause anything.

[Star]

I am very disappointed with developments on this thread. Is this inflammatory? It is one line in length and little more than a grand hurray for the winning side.

re Star Post 2684--Are you for real? How is it possible for an English-speaking adult to not know the difference between "absolutely certain" and "highly likely"?




The gap between absolutely certain and highly likely, in this case, is a hiding place for a person who refuses to offer a definitive opinion. That is why I included Danmark's link to the maths involved here ie over 8 billion. If there are 8.8 billion chances of replicating something then it is absolutely certain to happen . It is the same thing. How can it not be? What is going on here. Have I been reported for disagreeing with a strongly stated opinion? Am I guilty of any crime?
The odds involved are 1 : 8,800,000,000

I'm disappointed, too. I really don't know what you're talking about. I'm not aware of anyone here, except for you, who is asserting any kind of statistical probability of there being life on other planets. I suppose, you'll have us all believe, that this is Danmark's figure, and you're just repeating it? Show your math. This should be interesting.

[Danmark]

The gap between absolutely certain and highly likely, in this case, is a hiding place for a person who refuses to offer a definitive opinion. That is why I included Danmark's link to the maths involved here ie over 8 billion. If there are 8.8 billion chances of replicating something then it is absolutely certain to happen . It is the same thing. How can it not be? What is going on here. Have I been reported for disagreeing with a strongly stated opinion? Am I guilty of any crime?
The odds involved are 1 : 8,800,000,000

I think you are having several problems here. One is simply linguistic. When you use the word 'absolute' you are saying there is zero possibility of some event, or 100% probability. These would be exceptional cases. Scientists generally do not think in these terms, but rather in terms of relative probabilities. 'Cautious judgment' is the watchword in science.

Another issue is in the calculation of variables. "8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone," as reported by the NBC site is not the only variable. Other variables would include the age of the planets, the chemical makeup of the planets, the chances of abiogenesis [a factor that as far as I know no one has calculated. Someone here may be able to help, but as far as I know it may take 100 billion planets with all other factors being hospitable to life, before we could even say there was a 50-50 chance of abiogenesis taking place. Some here would say abiogenesis could never take place without a designer even if there were a trillion trillion planets hospitable to life], and dozens of other factors. Then there is the issue of what kind of life and how developed it might be.

Homo sapiens has been here on Earth for possibly as long as 200,000 years. We have recorded history for less than 10,000. In all that time, we don't have any confirmed reports of a visit from an alien civilization. Given the number of 'goldilocks planets' in the Milky Way, one could argue that the fact we have no clear contact from an alien species in all that time might suggest there are no aliens, or that the distances involved are so great that communication and travel are problematic. It's simply an area of thought genial to speculation rather than dogmatic claims of certainty.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post2667--So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

Thank You Danmark for your response here. I will not use the word alien or extra-terrestrial with reference to you again. I will use your word, abiogenesis. In your last post you make this comment about abiogenesis occurrences in the universe.

re Danmark Post2689--Other variables would include the age of the planets, the chemical makeup of the planets, the chances of abiogenesis [a factor that as far as I know no one has calculated.]

I misstated your position as being one of certainty and for that I apologize. Can a person who holds a belief in a supernatural religious thing as listed in the opening post use the phrases, highly likely and other variables, in the same way that it applies to the scientific conclusion of there most likely being abiogenesis out there,somewhere.

Is it credible for a religious person to say that the presence of their God is highly likely considering the complexity of variables that are in play here. I want to learn from this game of intellects but the first thing I need to grasp is that in this realm of speculation, the goals keep shifting.

[Sir Hamilton]

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

I've been debating on message boards for more than a decade. I don't know if you're trolling to get a rise out of us, or you're honestly just a newbie who doesn't know better, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide some personal advice...

You're on a message board and aren't entitled to privacy unless you use the Private Message (PM) feature. When you write on message boards, you have an audience. Many people read what you write. Assume everyone is watching.

You plagiarized Examiner, a trashy source of information, and that's why you were reluctant to tell us where you copy and pasted your list from. I wouldn't do that anymore. Post a link.

As the claimant, you bear the burden of citing your sources, or posting a link. You don't have to, of course, but don't expect credibility, especially when you copy and paste the work of others.

Merry Christmas.

Why do you consider cites that post science that supports a young earth 'trashy'? I have no more of a 'burden' than you do. My whole point is that you rely on what I consider to be 'trashy' science to support your beliefs.

[Sir Hamilton]

Whether we discuss 'god' or 'the universe' we are really talking about concepts difficult to define. Saying 'god created the universe' is a bit like saying 'infinity + 1'. Why not 'the universe created god?'

I agree that all we are doing here is speculating. But as long as we are doing that, we might as well do it as best we can and not throw the little clues we have out of the window. Since it doesn't seem to be possible for there to exist an infinite number of anything, I'm inclined to accept that there probably exists or has existed a first cause that is not affected by time.

But, until you have some hard core evidence, it's speculation, and quite often, wishful thinking and bias. The thread is 'Do you have evidence', not 'do you have speculation'. How could you confirm that something can exists that is not affected by time?

What core evidence do you have that proves God doesn't exist? What core evidence do you have that supports your beliefs of the origin of the universe? The origin of life? The origin of man?

[Goat]

Whether we discuss 'god' or 'the universe' we are really talking about concepts difficult to define. Saying 'god created the universe' is a bit like saying 'infinity + 1'. Why not 'the universe created god?'

I agree that all we are doing here is speculating. But as long as we are doing that, we might as well do it as best we can and not throw the little clues we have out of the window. Since it doesn't seem to be possible for there to exist an infinite number of anything, I'm inclined to accept that there probably exists or has existed a first cause that is not affected by time.

But, until you have some hard core evidence, it's speculation, and quite often, wishful thinking and bias. The thread is 'Do you have evidence', not 'do you have speculation'. How could you confirm that something can exists that is not affected by time?

What core evidence do you have that proves God doesn't exist? What core evidence do you have that supports your beliefs of the origin of the universe? The origin of life? The origin of man?

The evidence I have for the 'Big Bang' is the red shift of the stars of the universe, except for maybe a few in the local area. The core evidence I have for the God not existing is the lack of evidence for it. Until such time someone can present me with evidence that can be publicly examined (not personal testimony), I will lack a belief in said 'God'.. (if you can tell me what you mean by God that is). As for the origin of the inflation, there currently is not enough information to make a claim, but there are some interesting ideas floating around.

There is plenty of good fossil and genetic evidence to show that man evolved from an earlier primate, and that mankind, and other great apes share a common ancestor.

[Danmark]

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

I've been debating on message boards for more than a decade. I don't know if you're trolling to get a rise out of us, or you're honestly just a newbie who doesn't know better, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide some personal advice...

You're on a message board and aren't entitled to privacy unless you use the Private Message (PM) feature. When you write on message boards, you have an audience. Many people read what you write. Assume everyone is watching.

You plagiarized Examiner, a trashy source of information, and that's why you were reluctant to tell us where you copy and pasted your list from. I wouldn't do that anymore. Post a link.

As the claimant, you bear the burden of citing your sources, or posting a link. You don't have to, of course, but don't expect credibility, especially when you copy and paste the work of others.

Merry Christmas.

Why do you consider cites that post science that supports a young earth 'trashy'? I have no more of a 'burden' than you do. My whole point is that you rely on what I consider to be 'trashy' science to support your beliefs.

Star only called 'Examiner' a 'trashy source of information. You've been told several times why your attempts at arguing are weak. You simply cut and pasted someone else's work and even that work was simply a list of names. It would be more persuasive if you found just ONE name, studied what he or she actually studied, along with their findings, and actually argued why those findings proved your point. When you just plop down a name, including a 'scientist' who died hundreds of years before the issue in discussion here was even argued by scientists it gives the appearance you haven't thought out your position, but just cut and pasted something you think agrees with you. In the case of 'young earth earth creationism' the fact that virtually all serious scientists disagree with the idea you are promoting, does not mean you are wrong, but it does shift the burden to you to do a good job of presenting your argument.

Arguing is more than contradiction. A good argument consists of statements, one of which is the conclusion and the others are the premises or assumptions of the argument. To give an argument is to provide a set of premises as reasons for accepting the conclusion. You then can give citations to facts that you think support those premises.

To save myself some typing the preceding paragraph was partially paraphrased and plagiarized from http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/arg.php