Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 09:46 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
Yesterday at 02:25 PM

Lebanon incident
by zeca
August 08, 2020, 09:21 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
August 08, 2020, 07:40 PM

The essence of the facts
by zeca
August 08, 2020, 05:12 PM

Pakistan: The Nation.....
August 08, 2020, 05:39 AM

Kashmir endgame
August 07, 2020, 07:11 PM

New here, halo
August 06, 2020, 05:50 PM

New Britain
August 06, 2020, 05:04 AM

Apostasy Alternative
August 05, 2020, 03:18 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
August 05, 2020, 03:13 PM

'Islamic State' a.k.a. IS...
August 05, 2020, 01:47 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist

 (Read 23230 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #30 - August 10, 2015, 04:33 PM

    I will try to explain.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #31 - August 10, 2015, 04:48 PM

    So Ted, I think it'd be a good idea to clear something up of the benefit of the readers, as some of your posts make little sense. Some of the words and terms you're using don't mean what you think they mean. Natural for instance. You stated before that when you say something is not a natural phenomena you mean it is not something replicated by humans using natural processes. On page 6 of the comments thread you clarified.

    This is wrong. Something natural is something existing in or caused by nature, Why you think something "natural" is only something made or caused by humans I don't know.


    I accept my definition/explanations of natural are confusing. I will try to explain.

    As a believer I believe that everything is created. Absolutely everything that you can observe or imagine is creation. God has made our reality such that we can distinguish between what God is capable of doing and what we humans are capable of doing. This is so that we can use science to confirm his existence. I don't think it's correct to say that the evidence of God is the supernatural as there kind of is no such thing. The supernatural is just things that we don't understand and/or doesn't happen all the time.

    If we take the example of life we know what life is made up of and how it works however we are not able to create it ourselves even though we have the capabilities of manipulating atoms and molecules. If I called life supernatural then it doesn't sound right since there is an abundance of life.

    Maybe if i referred to things created by God as divinely inspired may help?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #32 - August 11, 2015, 01:07 AM

    You are the first person I've ever come across to say that a believer rejects that nature, the natural world (which is everything naturally occurring in the universe) wasn't created by god.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #33 - August 11, 2015, 08:34 AM

    You are the first person I've ever come across to say that a believer rejects that nature, the natural world (which is everything naturally occurring in the universe) wasn't created by god.


    Where did I say that? You missed it when I said several times that everything is created by God.

    Let me use the analogy of a role playing video game in a virtual world such as GTA. You'll understand this a lot better if you're a software developer/programmer. You design the video game. You have to write all that is possible and that can happen in the virtual world. You set the gravity, the size of the world, what a player can and cannot do, what the player looks like, what emotions they can feel, what is good, what is bad, etc. Now the players of the video game are all limited to what has been given to them however you as the software developer can do as you please in the virtual world as you can change gravity, the things in the world like shape, colour, texture, etc. anything. Players can lose lives, you have the power to give them life as many times as you want. You have no fear or worry in that virtual world as you can recreate everything in an instant. So if certain players decide to do evil and break the rules (which you have defined and told them about) what is the worst they can do? They can't do anything which is permanent since you have the power to reverse it or make it better than before. If those bad players decide to destroy a country which is populated by thousands of other players you can simply recreate that country in an instant.

    The question then become more about how you want players to behave in your virtual world. If you tell them to behave and they refuse to do so you can either change their abilities so they can no longer destroy things, kick them out of the game, replace them, etc. Are you really concerned about them or the players which are behaving the way you want them to behave. Those that listen to you you may want to reward them. Those that go that extra step and actually do some difficult things just to please you you may want to give them an extra reward.

  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #34 - August 11, 2015, 09:16 AM

    .

     Huh?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #35 - August 11, 2015, 10:46 AM

    Sorry for the ".". I'm not able to quote the latest post so I use a work around.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #36 - August 12, 2015, 07:35 AM

    No worries. Though I do feel the need to point out that nothing you've said so far has anything to do with the bible/quran.

    Where did I say that?


    You've said, both on this thread and in the comments section, that something natural is something we can control. You said on page six of the comments thread that gravity isn't natural/a part of nature..

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #37 - August 12, 2015, 09:59 AM


    Yes, you can't control gravity. As in you can't make things float by suspending the laws of gravity. Just because gravity is all over the place does not make it natural. Again it comes down to understanding "natural".
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #38 - August 12, 2015, 10:08 AM

    Even though I've explained what natural is, you're still using it in a way it doesn't mean.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #39 - August 12, 2015, 11:09 AM

    I'm not trying to trick anyone by using new definitions or catch you out. So feel free to think whatever you want to think.

    Why not let's just look at the science.

    Can humans create life from scratch? Should it be possible for humans to create life from scratch? Is life created through natural processes? You can test all of this. Feel free to use "God of gaps" for that. Those gaps are forever increasing they are not getting any smaller.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #40 - August 12, 2015, 09:48 PM

    Anyway QSE, if you want to stop it there I am fine with that. I don't want to wear you guys out. I just read a discussion between a Muslim and Atheist and the Muslim argument was tired and boring so I can understand.

    If you want to carry on then I suggest moving on. The next step was to destroy the theory that humans evolved from a primate/monkey or whatever you want to call it.

    If you want to call it quits I'm fine with that.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #41 - August 13, 2015, 02:28 AM

    Which theory exactly? There are many theories of evolution. But I don't see what this has to do with religion. There are plenty of jews/christians/muslims who accept human evolution. They believe it was guided by their god, several I've spoken to told me it strengthened their faith.

    I'm happy to continue, I'm just wondering if we're actually going to discuss the contents of the bible/quran. Obviously nothing said so far has anything to do with the scripture.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #42 - August 13, 2015, 09:19 PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    The above links is what I'll use as the reference to evolution and human evolution.

    Generally the two most notable scientific evidences of common ancestry are fossils and DNA. Lots of fossils have been collected and cataloged. Lots of DNA has been studied. The media and scientists describe these as solid irrefutable evidence of evolution. They portray evolution to be a fact and that if you deny it then you are denying science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of the best known scientists were and are religious.

    Anyway, the first question any reasonable person or scientist should/must ask is how fossils and DNA support common ancestry. First you need to define what common ancestry is. The basics, the fundamentals, the most obvious things about common ancestry or common descent as described by trusty ol' Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent.

    Common descent as defined by Wikipedia is "Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor". What Wikipedia does not mention explicitly is that the process/mechanism of common descent is sexual/asexual reproduction between a chain related living organisms. This is the most crucial process that is taken for granted, accepted implicitly by scientists and believers of evolution/common decent. So what evidence do we have that certain populations of living organisms are/were inter-fertile and actually reproduced with one another. The evidence that is cited is fossils and DNA. Tons of fossils and DNA will be thrown at the sceptical scientist and poor religious person and they will often be brow beaten into believing it.

    So here's the question how do fossils and DNA prove that certain living organisms are able to reproduce with one another? The scientific fact, undeniable truth is that fossils and DNA do NOT provide evidence that certain living organisms are able to reproduce with one another.

    If there is any scientist or science paper which can prove this then please cite me the research.

    I will leave you with that for now as I'm sure there's going to be some back and forth clarification of the above before reality sets in and the atheists succumb to the truth.

  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #43 - August 14, 2015, 07:44 AM

    So we're still not going to discuss islam then?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #44 - August 14, 2015, 08:04 AM

    Please check the title of this topic.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #45 - August 14, 2015, 09:18 AM

    I don't understand how anything said yet is evidence for the god of the bible/quran, which I believe was the point.

    Also, was there a specific evolutionary theory you had in mind, or just evolution in general?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #46 - August 14, 2015, 09:22 AM

    Sorry but are you familiar with ToE?

    Maybe it would be best to state an article which you want to use for reference otherwise we could be thinking different things.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #47 - August 14, 2015, 09:34 AM

    Obviously I'm familiar, I'm asking if there's a specific one you want to discuss. Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evo-Devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology), Structuralist Evolution, Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization Evolution, Multilevel Evolution, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, Teleological Selection Evolution, Divergent Evolution, Convergent Evolution, Parallel Evolution, Lamarck Evolution, or any of the other theories that have been, and are still being proposed? Or do you just want a more evolution general topic, or what?

    I also still don't understand what this has to do with evidence for god.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #48 - August 14, 2015, 10:05 AM

    OK I see what you mean now. Let's start off the definition of biological evolution first then maybe your other "evolutions" will make more sense to others.

    "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

    The above is a common definition used by many as it's concise. Are you OK with it?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #49 - August 14, 2015, 11:02 AM

    I'm happy to define evolution as changes taking place over time.

    And Ted, I've asked this multiple times now and I haven't seen a response. What exactly does any of this have to do with evidence for the god of the bible/quran? Whether or not we can create life ourselves today has nothing to do with the biblical/quranic god. Evolution has nothing to do with it. You could show evidence evolution is wrong, and it still doesn't prove your god, or any other.

    The only way to show evidence of this god is via the scripture. If you're not going to discuss the validity of the bible/quran, we will never get any evidence for the existence of allah either way.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #50 - August 14, 2015, 11:16 AM

    "I'm happy to define evolution as changes taking place over time."

    Sorry but that's not clear or precise enough. I'm beginning to think you don't really have a good understanding of evolution and science. No offence. You don't need in depth understanding of science, as I certainly don't have it, but you do need to understand the core principles of scientific evidence and experiments. Maybe it would be better leave this?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #51 - August 14, 2015, 11:50 AM

    So I see you're still ignoring my question on if we're ever going to talk about the religious texts or what on Earth anything said so far has to do with evidence for god.

    Evolution is the development of something, a process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms. Defining evolution as changes taking place over time is precisely what evolution is. It couldn't be defined better. I can only assume you feel it's not precise enough, or clear enough (I don't know how I could define evolution more precisely or clearly than that) because you have a specific type of evolution in mind you want to discuss.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #52 - August 14, 2015, 12:02 PM

    Do you know what an allele is?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #53 - August 14, 2015, 12:21 PM

    I know what the actual definition is, I don't know if you're using that definition though. I'm more interested in why you think my definition of evolution isn't precise or clear when my definition is exactly what evolution is.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #54 - August 14, 2015, 12:51 PM

    Because the definition needs to include things you can actually observe, measure and test for unambiguously?
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #55 - August 14, 2015, 12:55 PM

    "Evolution is the development of something, a process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms"

    What is "something"?
    What kinds of living organisms? Are they related to each other? Is it a species?
    What do you mean by developed?
    What do you mean by diversified?

  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #56 - August 14, 2015, 01:33 PM

    Because the definition needs to include things you can actually observe, measure and test for unambiguously?

    How can you not do this under the definition I gave?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #57 - August 14, 2015, 01:57 PM


    Forget it. You're just going to get confused. If you are interested then read up on it and when you understand some of it let me know.
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #58 - August 14, 2015, 02:38 PM

    I understand how evolution works Ted, just as I understand that my definition is valid. If you feel you can't argue against it that's fine.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Quod Sum Eris vs CallMeTed - Is there scientific evidence that proves the exist
     Reply #59 - August 14, 2015, 02:42 PM

    Yes, let's leave it at that.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »