Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proof ...Definition
07-16-2011, 03:05 AM
Post: #1
Proof ...Definition
Proof definition : evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true.

Objective : (of a person or their judgment) Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective :opinions Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

This is a good place to start when beginning any arguments that require evidence to back them up. Objective evidence is good evidence ,Subjective evidence is just opinion ,which we are entitled to no less , but doesn't stand as good evidence in an argument ,as everyone's opinion can be different ,valid ,but not objective evidence.

The best proof or evidence has stood up to peer review and all other theories have been disproved , or the weight of evidence is in favour of the better theory .
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-17-2011, 06:50 AM
Post: #2
RE: Proof ...Definition
Very quick to include these thoughts after my post but i can totally understand that! ;-) Atheists don't like it when their faith for no intelligent design is attacked by very strong evidence for intelligent design and also by backed up by leading scientists. I love these debates because it amazes me how the new atheists of late think they know about darwinian evolution. I don't know why the new atheists waste their time mind you if all they consider themselves to be is star dust in a temporary configuration. Now i don't think i am wasting my time because i believe there is purpose in life if one is able to get off their high horse and search for it. I also write posts to hopefully attract some very serious and deep thinkers that are searching for truth.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-17-2011, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 07-17-2011 08:49 AM by Martinuk.)
Post: #3
RE: Proof ...Definition
(07-17-2011 06:50 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Atheists don't like it when their faith for no intelligent design is attacked by very strong evidence for intelligent design and also by backed up by leading scientists. ... i believe there is purpose in life if one is able to get off their high horse and search for it...

Atheists don't have faith...we would love to see strong evidence for your "faith" but it needs to be true , objective , anything else is just preaching...can you name these LEADING scientists ?... What you BELIEVE is subjective , not evidence .

It's always advisable to read outside your own religion when looking for evidence , can you provide some quotes from leading scientists to back up anything you say ?

Try using google with the words STATISTICS SCIENTISTS EVOLUTION. Then read all the arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-17-2011, 10:06 AM
Post: #4
RE: Proof ...Definition
In suggesting that the universe is designed , it must be argued that there is a designer . A spider may design a web , this web has all the hall marks of design ,therefore the designer must be intelligent . The intelligence is found in the design of the spider , therefore the designer of the spider must too be intelligent . This takes us back to the spiders designer who must also be intelligent . Then to the designer of this designer and so on , taking us back to one of two ideas . The Deists view or that of complexity starting from simplicity ,then the gradual process of mutation and natural selection . So that leaves the question of "is there a God or intelligent designer "
In order to secure justification for believing that there is no God one would need to seriously consider the best arguments that have been made for the conclusion that there is a God. Those arguments are at least prima facie grounds against the reasonableness of non-belief. Believing there is no God is premature until one has good reasons to think those arguments are unacceptable. But the fact that many people have opted to believe even though they acknowledge that they don’t have reasonable grounds for doing so presents no challenge whatsoever to the person who concludes that the reasonable conclusion is to disbelieve. If their belief is acquired by faith, then they can make no claim against the rationality of atheism. They have made it clear that reasons and evidence are irrelevant to them—they’re going to believe what they want and to hell with being rational. Rejecting the relevance of having justifications for beliefs leaves them with no leverage and no possible complaint against the atheist.

Many atheists feel compelled to respond when a believer says, “Well, I have faith that God exists.” The atheist will offer a variety of criticisms of believing by faith. But it should now be clear that justifying atheism doesn’t require discounting faith. Furthermore, trying to rebut faith is typically futile. The faithful have already implicitly (or explicitly) acknowledged that what the evidence or arguments indicate is irrelevant to them. By invoking faith, they have already embarrassed and made a mockery of themselves more than any thoughtful reasoned rebuttal could accomplish.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-17-2011, 01:09 PM
Post: #5
RE: Proof ...Definition
(07-17-2011 06:50 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Very quick to include these thoughts after my post but i can totally understand that! ;-) Atheists don't like it when their faith for no intelligent design is attacked by very strong evidence for intelligent design and also by backed up by leading scientists. I love these debates because it amazes me how the new atheists of late think they know about darwinian evolution. I don't know why the new atheists waste their time mind you if all they consider themselves to be is star dust in a temporary configuration. Now i don't think i am wasting my time because i believe there is purpose in life if one is able to get off their high horse and search for it. I also write posts to hopefully attract some very serious and deep thinkers that are searching for truth.
I only just arrived on this forum but already I have the feeling that you don't answer messages that members post to you. If I'm right, you are only trolling.

It is clear to me that you don't know anything already, just from reading this one message. I would suggest that you might try getting off your own "high horse" and present your proofs instead of your assertions.

Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-17-2011, 01:22 PM
Post: #6
RE: Proof ...Definition
(07-17-2011 01:09 PM)Corky Wrote:  
(07-17-2011 06:50 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Very quick to include these thoughts after my post but i can totally understand that! ;-) Atheists don't like it when their faith for no intelligent design is attacked by very strong evidence for intelligent design and also by backed up by leading scientists. I love these debates because it amazes me how the new atheists of late think they know about darwinian evolution. I don't know why the new atheists waste their time mind you if all they consider themselves to be is star dust in a temporary configuration. Now i don't think i am wasting my time because i believe there is purpose in life if one is able to get off their high horse and search for it. I also write posts to hopefully attract some very serious and deep thinkers that are searching for truth.
I only just arrived on this forum but already I have the feeling that you don't answer messages that members post to you. If I'm right, you are only trolling.

It is clear to me that you don't know anything already, just from reading this one message. I would suggest that you might try getting off your own "high horse" and present your proofs instead of your assertions.

Well said and thank you for responding Corky Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2011, 09:08 AM
Post: #7
RE: Proof ...Definition
Because you always insist on proof I have added something for you sceptics to read. It's obviously up to you what you decide to believe at the end of the day.

As mentioned earlier, I would like to know when the atheist is going to provide evidence for no God and in their own belief.

Just some examples of design in nature

1/ The Bacterium Flagellum – I used to be an engineer and I know of no motor that was not designed by a thinking mind behind it. Ok we are talking about the biological world, but God created us in his image so we can design like he can. Why should the world have these designs in them similar to how we think, only much more efficient.
We are led to believe that this esquisitively-designed motor is the product of chance. This motor is so impressive even the hard-nosed scientists have had to try and come up with an explanation of how it could have evolved and they do it in such general terms that they are left of the hook.
I’ve included this web-site for further information (evidence if you like) http://www.icr.org/article/debating-desi...flagellum/

2/ The Cell - There’s no such thing as a simple cell? Because it has been observed that each cell is a literally factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines, bristling with high-tech machinery.
On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers and inside cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. In fact, they even have miniature monorails that whisk materials from one location to another.
In fact, the most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell. And the so-called simplest of all cells, the paramecium is more complex than the space shuttle, which is the most complex machine man has ever built!

3/ The DNA - The amount of information that could be contained within just the amount of DNA on a pinhead would, if written into paperback books, would make a pile of books 500 times higher than from here to the moon!
The amount of human genomes that could be contained on just a pinhead would be more than 1/5th the population of the world! If you were to stretch out the material of a pinhead into a wire with the same thin diameter as a DNA molecule, it would go around the equator over 30 times!
There are about 3 million nucleotides in just a single cell bacterium while there are over 3 billion nucleotides in the DNA of a single human cell! Each one is aligned sequentially in a very specific order meaning that there are 3 billion complicated chemical links, each one of which has to be in a precisely correct sequence, in just one human cell.
The DNA molecule, 45 trillion times more efficient than the silicon megachip, which was made by teams of designers!

4/ Orchids - Bee Orchid imitate insects to ensure fertilization, and the methods used differ from one to the other. Some have on their petals what appears to be a three-dimensional picture of a female wasp, complete with eyes, antennae and wings? In fact, the petal even gives off the odor of a female in mating condition so when the male arrives to mate, he gets tricked into pollinating the flower!
There is a totally flawless harmony between insects, whose bodily structure is entirely suited to that of the plants, and the plants themselves. It is impossible for the reciprocity in such a "lock and key" relationship to have come about by chance, as the evolutionists claim.

5/ Silver Maple - It’s seeds are encased in a leaf-like shell that is shaped like a helicopter blade. This causes the seeds to rapidly spin like a descending helicopter, which greatly slows their descent speed, and causes them to disperse much farther away from the tree than they otherwise could.
How did these propeller-shaped seeds form? The encasement is much larger than the actual seeds; the tree uses extra resources to produce them when it could just be making plain, simple seeds. Did the tree somehow come to understand aerodynamics, and will itself to produce seeds that could descend slowly away from the branches? Did the seeds somehow detect that they were falling, and decide that it would be beneficial to form a shell that would let them descend gently like a helicopter landing, and over generations of trees they formed propellers? You decide for yourself!

6/ Butterflies & Moths (design of the egg) - Egg of a monarch butterfly has a hard outer shell called the chorion, which protects the larva inside. The shell is lined with wax, which prevents the egg from drying out, and each egg has at least a few holes, and sometimes many. These holes are important, because the egg forms its hard shell before it is fertilized. The egg would not be able to become fertilized without the holes being present.
How did the butterfly realize that the hard agg shell won’t become fertilized unless it had a couple of holes in it? How did the butterfly reproduce before it these holes appeared, and how did it will itself to produce eggs like these? Again you decide for yourself!

7/ Fruit - Plants and trees that produce fruit are interesting, because seeds actually do not even need the fruit to begin growing.
Plants devote such a huge amount of their resources to make fruit; especially something like watermelons, and the seeds cannot even begin to grow until the fruit is gone. By designing fruit to be food, animals (and people) take the developed fruit, carry it away from the original plant, and deposit the seeds in other locations. The fruit even tastes best once the seeds are fully developed. This assists in the survival of that species. Could a plant possibly have understood that producing its seeds in an edible encasement would be beneficial to seed dispersion? You choose for yourself!

8/ Eyes another view! - Most mammals have one advantage over human eyesight. Have you ever shined a light at an animal in the dark, and noticed it’s eyes are like reflectors? That reflective layer allows animals to see better at night, because if a photon (or light particle) misses a photoreceptor, the reflective layer bounces the light back through the photoreceptors again. You decide if randomness at work or design!

Nature is basically full of thousands of examples like these!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2011, 11:00 AM (This post was last modified: 07-29-2011 11:02 AM by Corky.)
Post: #8
RE: Proof ...Definition
(07-29-2011 09:08 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  Because you always insist on proof I have added something for you sceptics to read. It's obviously up to you what you decide to believe at the end of the day.

As mentioned earlier, I would like to know when the atheist is going to provide evidence for no God and in their own belief.

Just some examples of design in nature....
Atheist don't have to provide evidence that a god doesn't exist because that is the negative position. Theists have the burden of proof, not the atheists. When something doesn't exist, there will never be any evidence - and that's just what we find for your god - nothing.

The rest of your post is purely an argument from incredulity and ignorance and you obviously know nothing about evolution at all. You could learn some stuff from those Christadelphians who do know and accept evolution.

You know nothing about atheists either because atheism is not a "belief" - atheism is the lack of belief in gods and the supernatural. I'm sure you've heard that before and it's about time for you to grow up and know that's the way of it. In other words, atheists are just people who don't believe in your supernatural bullshit that you can't prove or show any evidence for.

Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-30-2011, 05:00 AM
Post: #9
RE: Proof ...Definition
I will included this paragraph again for you to read!

In debating these issues it’s very easy to knock the burden of proof onto the theist and say you explain everything but No! In this world we’re not in a position where there is only one explanation contending but there are rival explanations. The theist explanation, the God explanation and there is a non-theist or atheist explanation and we have to way the two against each other. My view is that the atheist explanation flounders when confronted with all these facts. The complexity of the cell, the fine tuning of the universe, the fact of morality, the depth of human evil and the evidence for Biblical truth.

So in arguing these issues i have provided much and yet you have provided absolutely nothing. I find it amazing that the atheists claim to know about evolution where if you actually knew about science, to study one area of it can take a life time. It took Darwin most of his life to develop his theory and yet he was still confused about his own ideas and how they could work. Now the Bio-chemical age has appeared, his theory is becoming less viable all the time. So how about you show me that you actually understand Evolution and provided proof to back up your claims!?

I have also noticed that you are becoming more hot tempered. I knew this would happen because it is the general trend with atheists i have found, because they think they have all the answers and are debating against something they know very little about!

So i have provided much information (which it seems you have not read) and can carry on if time allows. I have received nothing but rants from you!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-30-2011, 09:34 AM
Post: #10
RE: Proof ...Definition
(07-30-2011 05:00 AM)fxmikey Wrote:  I will included this paragraph again for you to read!

In debating these issues it’s very easy to knock the burden of proof onto the theist and say you explain everything but No! In this world we’re not in a position where there is only one explanation contending but there are rival explanations. The theist explanation, the God explanation and there is a non-theist or atheist explanation and we have to way the two against each other. My view is that the atheist explanation flounders when confronted with all these facts. The complexity of the cell, the fine tuning of the universe, the fact of morality, the depth of human evil and the evidence for Biblical truth.

So in arguing these issues i have provided much and yet you have provided absolutely nothing. I find it amazing that the atheists claim to know about evolution where if you actually knew about science, to study one area of it can take a life time. It took Darwin most of his life to develop his theory and yet he was still confused about his own ideas and how they could work. Now the Bio-chemical age has appeared, his theory is becoming less viable all the time. So how about you show me that you actually understand Evolution and provided proof to back up your claims!?

I have also noticed that you are becoming more hot tempered. I knew this would happen because it is the general trend with atheists i have found, because they think they have all the answers and are debating against something they know very little about!

So i have provided much information (which it seems you have not read) and can carry on if time allows. I have received nothing but rants from you!

So in other words, you are too lazy to do a little reading on evolution at the "Talk Origins" website and want me to personally explain evolution to you? Do I look like your personal tutor?

You can easily falsify evolution by finding a mammal in the Cambrian layer (most people say a rabbit) because there were no mammals in the Cambrian age.

Now, how do you falsify God? The answer is that you can't - there is no method of falsification for things that do not exist. That's why the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that something does exist.

In other words, it is very simple to disprove evolution; show by the fossil record that living things on this planet did not change over time but that humans, rabbits and other mammals lived in the Cambrian age - simple.

Now, how do you disprove God? What method do you use to disprove anything that doesn't exist?

I have a pink unicorn in my back yard...

Okay, you can go look in my back yard and see that I have no pink unicorn out there but you must remember that my pink unicorn is invisible - now, how do you prove there is no pink unicorn in my back yard? Isn't it then my burden of proof to show you my pink unicorn? If I can't show you my pink unicorn, should you believe that I have a pink unicorn in my back yard?

Faith is disdain for evidence, dismissal of reason, denial of logic, rejection of reality, contempt for truth.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


[-]
Share/Bookmark (Show All)
Facebook Linkedin Technorati Twitter Digg MySpace Delicious

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)