Webster defines the scientific method (the basis for the study of everything studied) as;
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Now tell me this...who can accurately test "evolution"? I'm not sure of any scientist who has observed evolution taking place.
. Every scientist who digs up a fossil tests evolution; all it would take to disprove evolution would be to dig up anachronistic fossils like a dinosaur with a spear point in it or dino coprolite with human bones in it (just to choose the most obvious examples). Examples of proof evolution includes observing changes in mitochondrial dna over various populations.
A theory is just that...Theory. It must remain theory until it can be proven as a law. There is no Theory of gravity...there is a law of gravity. Likewise, there is no LAW of evolution because scientists and researchers cannot come to an agreement amongst themselves as to which proccesses are accurate. Why not? Because it is unobservable!
Same principles. Both are believed out of innocence and people will defend them as long as they believe in them.
Neither are very logical either (santa delivering presnts to the globe is about as believable as creation) and thier purpose is to make us happy and keep us well behaved. So what do you think, is god just like santa, does he only exist if you believe in him?
>> i am aiming to restart discussion
I disagree. That's not an aim for discussion, it's an attack masked in terse humour.
>> The entire thread is pretty much an argument
I didn't really follow it much, but I felt (from brief readings), that it was more a discussion with heated views. JB's post belittled something a lot of people feel strongly about. If he simply said "So what do you think, is god just like santa, does he only exist if you believe in him?" that would be fine. I just thought his wording was ... putrefactive.
Don't mind me. I'm exam stressed. I need a hot whiskey.
I had some scotch the other day. Buddy of mine brought me some from Edinburgh (he's studying there). Top quality stuff... drambuie if I remember the name.
I got my final uni exams next week for three weeks. Fun, huh?
>> Onbiously i was wrong.
Heh. Maybe I should drink more when on these forums. That 'God existing only if you believe in him' is kinda like the quantum suicide and immortality paradox.
WTH has Santa got to do with 'Why this scientist believes in God' topic? Just because this thread has got a 'GOD' in it doesn't mean you go around resurrecting 3 month old threads just for the sake of starting an argument, and you Bennet, should have known that better than anyone else!
>> If what young jbennet's believes upsets you, you are not much of a believer in your own belief. Let's discuss this after your exams, please.
Heh. It's not really the specific topic on hand that irked me... it was the manner in which the point was made. As Dave said it's a straw man argument ... I guess I'm a purist debater when it comes to it and like void main have strong feelings on unintelligent* debate. Lemme say that I would probably have said what I said no matter the topic. You're going to have to take my word on that though.
Probably is too long. And we aren't really talking about Collins anymore.
why do prodestants believe in the bible so strongly when it was a) written hundreds of years afrer it all supposedly happened b) isnt the whole story as books which contradicted eachoteher were not included
It was not written hundreds of years after it happened. The Bible is a collection of records and letters written by many people over many hundreds of years. Most of these events were written down as they happened, or shortly after they happened.
What happened hundreds of years after the events happened was translation into current languages. This must be redone every 50 years or so, because the current language in use by people today undergoes changes.
Most of those books people think are alternate versions of the events are storylines for stage plays written in the second century by Greek playwrights. They were never intended to be accurate versions of the events. But those intent on discrediting the Bible try to persuade others that they were written as fact.
If you want to understand why people strongly believe in the Bible today, try opening your mind up to the possibility that God does exist, and that He is actively working through the people who believe. John 14 and 16 show how this is done.