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]

.

I guess I don't really follow this line of thinking.

The idea is to create virtual cells that reproduce, then introduce a small amount of variation to the reproduction. If Darwinian evolution is true then these cells will become more fit for survival and reproduction as they will compete with each other for computer time and space. There should be no limit to how sophisticated these cyber cells can become.

This is incorrect. There most definitely are limitations, as always with processing power and storage capacity.

There have been simulations done on smaller scales in regards to things like genetics, but even our fastest super computers aren't fast enough to recreate complex life on an entire planet over billions of years. Additionally, programming the countless variables and instructions would be a monumental task.

Expect this to change with quantum computing in the not-so-distant future.

[Sir Hamilton]

What evidence do you have other than to appeal to the authority of scientists who are nothing more than men interpreting data from their own biased opinion?

How predictable. What is the problem?

I just finished explaining how an appeal to expertise and scientific consensus is different, and provided a link to information on fallacies for your edification. I also predicted that, regardless, you'd turn around an accuse me of making the same mistake myself anyway, and you did.

At the website I linked to, they explain: "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."

I then said: "You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go."

Then you, as I predicted, come back with: "What evidence do you have other than to appeal to the authority of scientists..." and "You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man" and "My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact."

I studied in school for a long time, as did many of these other non-believers. We don't just memorize what we're told in school. We understand, problem solve, and apply our knowledge to real world applications. I'm sorry you are not familiar with higher education and much of the subject material we're discussing. You came to debate without first doing your homework.

You must not be aware that these so-called experts are nothing more than humans. Finite imperfect humans who are capable of honest mistakes and deliberate misinterpretation of data. Data that can be interpreted differently by other humans who are experts in the fields of cosmology, geology, physics, biology, etc. I think i 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 am saying and i am going to keep on saying it....you appeal to authority and i appeal to authority. You don't know anymore about the origin of the universe, life, or humans than i do based on science. I have the added truth of divine revelation as well.

[Sir Hamilton]

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

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).

So what if you plagiarized a list of names from a tabloid? I bet none of those scientists even published anything for peer-review, anyway. I've checked my online database of my accredited university, which has a subscription to pretty much every journal, and found no religious fables masquerading as real science.

Can you name one piece of work? Just one, by one creationist scientist? Don't tell me it's my homework, like you had the nerve to do to Goat. This is your homework, I assure you. You have come to debate woefully unprepared and we've already helped you out more than we're obligated to.

Delgado, C. "Finding evolution in medicine", NIH Record 58 (15) 28 July 2006

Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God�, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

I could care less about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Their opinions mean nothing to me. What is this?? some kind of popularity contest?? It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

Are you here to debate or play games? "I don't care" isn't a valid counter-argument. If anything, it's incredulous and asinine.

I was trying to put into perspective for you just how abysmally small your list of scientists are. You can't avoid forming your own arguments in a debate because you think scientists agree without someone countering that a vast majority of the world's scientists actually don't.

The world's inhabitants aren't all experts, therefore, you are appealing to popularity, a fallacy. Also, you are committing a very similar fallacy, of appealing to the authority of your scientists, because you are not demonstrating a knowledge of their science in your arguments. You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

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.

[Danmark]

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%)

What you should be able to learn from this is that your idea about proving some 'truth' based on the percentage of who believes what is absurd.

But the most revealing part of what you wrote is this:

"...you will have to show me the data on that one and i [sic] still won't believe it."

This statement from you that "you still won't believe it" regardless of what facts are presented is the most revealing of all. Since you confess that facts are not relevant to you, there is no point in debating you or in listening to anything you have to say. You have plainly announced that you believe what you believe and no one should try to argue with you with mere facts.

[Star]

I am sure that many people with religious beliefs would not like to describe their strongly held beliefs as metaphysics. That is why I consider it the middle ground between science and religion

?

Surely two sides will converge to a middle ground especially if there is continuity and commonality between both sides which is exactly my point. Significant aspects of both science and religion converge towards a metaphysical centre of sameness.

I'm not convinced by this argument. Firstly, it's a false middle-ground fallacy, and secondly, science and theology are nothing alike. Science is based on evidence. Theology is based on faith in absence of evidence. Science produces real tangible results, like our computers. In theology, you can believe anything you want, regardless if it's true or not. Halfway between the truth and a lie is still a lie.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

[Student]

.

How short is your memory, or is it simply selective amnesia? I was asking about the publication, in which, you claimed, Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

Cricks paper regarding the structure of DNA, published in 1953, does not appear to mention debunking Darwin. Do you have some other publication in mind or are you simply making it up?

Yes, my memory is short. Fortunately the Internet has a better memory, so please show me where I claimed a publication, that claimed, Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

Fair enough, you made the claim in post #2757

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

Is that clear enough for you.

You clearly claimed that Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

In response to my request for evidence i.e. the publication in which Crick debunks Darwinian Evolution, to substantiate your claim, you have responded with prevarication, obfuscation and thinly veiled insults.

Provide the evidence or retract your claim.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post2817-- 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%)
What you should be able to learn from this is that your idea about proving some 'truth' based on the percentage of who believes what is absurd.

How could you learn this from that?

Sir Hamilton's original argument was not one of those ad_populum things that we watch for. His point was that if you use data and percentages for items on a list of scientists then you must be prepared to have the fact back at you that most people choose religious belief.

[zeromeansnothing]

re JoeyKnothead Post2810-- I'll tell ya now, I don't cotton to evasive tactics designed to confuse folks.

Neither do I. What does highly likely mean. If I say to someone aged 30 that it is highly likely that they will be deceased in the year 2113, am I being evasive? You are correct that you are talking to me but you are talking to the forum participants as well. I have been waiting to see how the Crick debunking Darwin guestion resolves itself because it is a wonderful example of a debater taking someone to task regardless of the effort and time that is involved.

I never gave you a definition but I did offer you an assertive opinion.

Regarding your last point I feel it is more likely that religion will be around to populate the space vacated by any sort of scientific calamity. Science effects religious thought in a very slow and almost imperceptible way. Its effect on religious thought is indistinguishable from the other processes of evolvement that religion takes when it is prompted by any external stimuli, ie natural disasters, politics etc.

[Student]

.

In Crick’s view, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel’s genetics and knowledge of the molecular basis of genetics, when combined, revealed the secret of life.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has NOT been demonstrated. If you know of any evidence to suggest otherwise please present it.

It is certainly true that Darwin did not understand the exact mechanism that resulted in the variation of the species. We owe a debt to Crick and Watson and others for that. The DNA/RNA mechanism validated the theory of evolution, no matter how many crank creation sites would have it otherwise. This is nothing more than wishful thinking, the central modus operandi of the pseudo scientist. The silliest thing those sorts do, knowing they are beaten, is their concession to what they call 'microevolution.' They could scarcely do otherwise. Then they try to show that what they call 'macro' evolution is not established. The difference is simply one of scale.
Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... oscales_01

If this were true, we could take a large computer and fill it with quine programs and randomly mutate the reproduction of these quine programs. Eventually this computer should produce new and even intelligent programs. And if that happens then we can say that the Theory of Intelligent Design has been falsified and Darwinism upheld.

I rather think that perhaps you are confusing quines with genetic algorithms:

A genetic algorithm (GA) is great for finding solutions for complex problems. They're used in engineering to design all sorts of products because they're brilliant at finding just the right materials and the right shapes to create stronger, faster and overall better products. They're also used to design computer algorithms, to schedule tasks, and to solve other optimization problems. Genetic algorithms work by mimicking the way life finds solutions to real world problems using the process of evolution. Although genetic algorithms are capable of solving incredibly complicated problems, they are themselves pretty simple to understand.

http://www.theprojectspot.com/tutorial- ... eginners/3

You can find out more about genetic algorithms here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

[zeromeansnothing]

This thread is about evidence for supernatural beliefs. The metaphysical nature of science is for another thread as is a discussion regarding the similarities or otherwise between science and religion. These will inevitably be long and detailed or perhaps they have been done already. I have stated my position on this and I feel confident that I could substantiate it . I apologize to Far Wanderer for not replying to the last post because I want to address the opening post briefly.