Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 19. (Read 901357 times)

And THAT is why atheists hate religion. 

^^^ All those words without any point for them. Why not post more?

Oh, yes. There's a limit to how many words the forum allows in one post.

Nothing wrong with posting a bunch of words. It's fun.

 

''Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.''

''Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though. In fact, facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else.

"Hypotheses, theories and laws are rather like apples, oranges and kumquats: one cannot grow into another, no matter how much fertilizer and water are offered," according to the University of California. A hypothesis is a limited explanation of a phenomenon; a scientific theory is an in-depth explanation of the observed phenomenon. A law is a statement about an observed phenomenon or a unifying concept, according to Kennesaw State University.

"There are four major concepts in science: facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories," Coppinger told Live Science.

Though scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data, accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of scientific study and help to unify it, they are not the same thing.

"Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.

Coppinger pointed out that the Law of Gravity was discovered by Isaac Newton in the 17th century. This law mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. However, Newton's law doesn't explain what gravity is, or how it works. It wasn't until three centuries later, when Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, that scientists began to understand what gravity is, and how it works.

"Newton's law is useful to scientists in that astrophysicists can use this centuries-old law to land robots on Mars. But it doesn't explain how gravity works, or what it is. Similarly, Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment describes how different traits are passed from parent to offspring, not how or why it happens," Coppinger said.

Another example of the difference between a theory and a law would be the case of Gregor Mendel. Mendel discovered that two different genetic traits would appear independently of each other in different offspring. "Yet Mendel knew nothing of DNA or chromosomes. It wasn't until a century later that scientists discovered DNA and chromosomes — the biochemical explanation of Mendel's laws. It was only then that scientists, such as T.H. Morgan working with fruit flies, explained the Law of Independent Assortment using the theory of chromosomal inheritance. Still today, this is the universally accepted explanation (theory) for Mendel's Law," Coppinger said.

The difference between scientific laws and scientific facts is a bit harder to define, though the definition is important. Facts are simple, basic observations that have been shown to be true. Laws are generalized observations about a relationship between two or more things in the natural world. The law can be based on facts and tested hypothesizes, according to NASA.

For example, "There are five trees in my yard" is considered a fact because it is a simple statement that can be proven. "The apples fall down from the tree in my back yard and not up" is a law because it describes how two things in nature behave that has been observed in a certain circumstance. If the circumstance changes, then the law would change. For example, in the vacuum of space, the apple may float upward from the tree instead of downward.''

Read more at: https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

Why would I want contradict myself by attempting to prove that there is no proof of evolution theory? Haven't I been talking about ETE? The fact that you are attempting to twist things around and skew the understanding of things we are talking about, proves that you are a person of bad faith.

Haven't you seen the term "law of gravity?" But you haven't seen the term "law of evolution," right? What does this show us? It shows that gravity is known to be real, but that evolution isn't known to be real, even though we have theories about both.

This shows that you try to disprove God from false premises when you talk the way you do. It also shows that you are a person of bad faith by the fact that you have a religion of atheism.

''Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution '' Prove it heh. Can you prove there has been no proof of evolution theory? Evolution theory exists thanks to the scientific method, saying there has been no proof of evolution is like saying there has been no proof of gravity, of course gravity doesn't knock out your imaginary god so you accept it.

Using the scientific method to prove the Bible works. Anti-Bible scientists that use science on the Bible, don't use science in a complete way, or they ignore some of the findings, or they quit prematurely because they find that science is proving the Bible to be reliable.

Note that there has been no proof of evolution theory evolution (ETE) ever having been found. This makes ETE to exist in theory only. In fact, the idea that ETE occurred over extended periods of time, makes it unable to ever be proven until we develop working time machines, and methods to examine the DNA of millions of past creatures from multitudes of time zones.

The significance of this is that ETE scientists will always have their foot in the door regarding ETE, but they will never get in any further. The other significant point about this is, nobody will ever be able to use past DNA examinations to prove ETE is wrong.

This means that we will have to continue with the knowledge that adaptation, simple change, and like-begets-like have nothing to do with ETE... because we can't even prove that ETE exists/existed.

Further, it proves that you are not asking or commenting about evolution. How? By the fact that I have answered these things for you over and over, and you can't find any way to contradict what I say. This proves that you have other reasons for continuing to comment the way you do on the evolution subject. You are trying to harm me by attempting to get me to slip up in something that I say.

This proves that you are a person of bad faith.

Badecker: evolution is not real and it's only a scientific theory

Badecker: The bible is true because....

What method did you use to say the bible is true when you yourself admit the scientific method works?

I don't necessarily think the things that you say that I do just because you say that I do... especially since you contradict the things that you say at the same time that you say them. Rather, you suggest that you are a troll by interjecting ideas as you do.

Right but then you don't accept the scientific method for evolution and you think the bible is better, why? What method did you use to determine the bible is better than the scientific method to determine the truth?

I admire you that you have the fortitude to stay with your false religion as stupid as it is. Or would that be admiring stupidity?

Even with all the anti-aging stuff coming into being these days, neither of us will probably live much more than a hundred years or so. Then we sleep a dreamless sleep until the Judgment Day, when we will find out who is more correct.

Since I answered the question, but you just don't seem to understand the answer, look above for the answer.

My Jehovah witness buddy told me that same nonsense like 45 years ago...  So when exactly is "too late" ?

You pious folk just wont let it go. It's why I don't bother arguing with you. Waste of time.
More fun just mocking your silly superstitious delusions and having a chuckle.

Right but you didn't answer the question, what system or method is better then, in your opinion to find out the truth about something specific?

You are talking about two truths. One truth is the simple truth that gravity exists. The other truth is why or how it exists.

KNOWING that things fall to the ground, doesn't have anything to do with knowing WHY they fall. They fall even if we don't know why.

In the case of gravity, if we want to know WHY gravity works, outside of being told why by someone who knows why, the scientific method might be the best way to find out why.

The WHY of it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it happens. If nobody wants to know WHY, and nobody uses any method to determine WHY, it still happens.

What's the matter? Do you need explanations of such simple things that you talk about, just so that you can understand them? Do you even understand yourself at all?

Yeah but what's better than the scientific method when it comes to determining the truth? If you want to know why things fall to the ground, what's a better system than the scientific method? Certainly not eye witnesses or priests, they probably thought it was some sort of magic or just made up something to explain it, answer the question. 

Good examination of DNA evidence might prove eye witness reports wrong. But we still haven't found any way that DNA proves or disproves gravity being real... at least without a lot of convoluted interpretation of DNA properties. Yet we have eye witness accounts of all the people that have ever lived on earth that gravity exists. Or do you have some DNA evidence that shows that gravity doesn't exist?

So, I totally agree that science works. Science theory works to substantiate science one way or another. Science theory itself isn't the point of science that is being substantiated by the theory.

DNA evidence trumps eyewitness testimony.

Science works, bitch!!!

And whats funnier is that you think you understand science theory from a load of words which is the standard explanation. Yet it is my simple explanation that describes it much more clearly. Yet you won't even accept the standard explanation. Because if you did, you would accept my explanation since they are the same.

I'm kinda glad you only believe in gravity. Such shows you aren't operating in the real world.

Eye witnesses are used everyday in court systems around the world. Now you are opposing your own government.

An atheist is going to be an atheist without my or exemplar's help. But at least I show the atheist ways to get out of his stupidity. Like at the bottom.




Is that all you can say? Come on and change your god from yourself to the real God, before it's too late for you.

Hey dude...try changing your meds....