Why do you believe that there is a god?

[bboy1827]

Final post in this thread because I can def see there is no point, you guys even if you do get it refuse to acknowledge the validity of Epistemology...


A) I said metaphysical certainty, sorry questions is what I have, questions that may never be answered, such as "Is there a world outside of my head"

B) Science cannot disprove God...in fact, as I've stated, the more I learn about science the more I believe in "God the Creator"

C) Epistemology is what you're arguing against, Epistemology.

and lastly.....

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

If my position never changed, then how am I going in circles?

You have misinterpreted every single post that you have challenged

Example: I said this

JaysRcrak wrote:
Why do athiests always want you to PROVE there is a God, when you cant PROVE what you believe in?
The scientific explanation of creation has as many holes in it as the religious explanation.

The truth is it doesnt matter. This debate will never end.

But in the genius that is PleasurePhD's brain you interpreted that I said this:

PleasurePhD wrote:
First return post you made, every religious person claims to know God exists and can prove it.


How in the hell did you jump to that conclusion?

Example 2:
In response to Sillyputty's remark that "No one says anything without proof"
I talk about IgG subclass assays(referring to predictive value of subclass specific IgG for succesful immuno-therapy)
and your rebuttal is about IgEs.

This is why I stopped acknowledging you. Because you don't read with comprehension.
How can you post a rebuttal if you dont even understand what a person is saying?
WOW good job taking my words out of context to support some false notion of me not understanding you. Either you are doing that or you just plain don't have any reading comprehension. Here is the full response that describes why I stated that first sentence:

1. First return post you made, every religious person claims to know God exists and can prove it. NOT every scientist believes in the Big Bang Theory. Which is misnamed, it actually is a hypothesis. We can't prove the BBT is correct but at least we have theoretical models, and mathematics that support it. The existence of God has NONE! THE TRUTH IS yes some scientist believe in things that can't be tested at the moment, but they believe in those things because of all the indirect supporting evidence and theoretical models. For example the existence of aliens is based on OUR existence. If WE exist and WE are a tiny speck in the universe it doesn't sound so improbable that other life exists on one of the other billions of planets. There are a lot of scientists who don't believe that aliens exist as well as the BBT. There aren't a lot of religious individuals that don't think a God exists. That's the difference in why you need proof of an existence of a God and scientists don't need (even though they have some) proof of hypotheses being true. Why again? because THEY ARE HYPOTHESES.

LOL

Genius, IgG subclasses are not the only antibodies in the human immune system. IgG antibodies are the most abundant, but IgE plays a very important role in allergen recognition. WHICH is why I brought them up after I addressed you IgG comment. Do you even know WTH you are typing lol. An IgG subclass assay determines the type of subclass that, that particular person is producing, during an immune response. Your adaptive immune system produces certain subclasses of IgG in certain percentages in order to combat a foreign antigen. Knowing this information you can then determine how to better treat a patient, for example how to treat them using immunosuppression, or activation. Possibly immunotherapy with non-native antibodies as well. You can even get a better understanding of what he or she is fighting off. This assay is 100% proven and well researched. It saves lives in hospitals. So what is so unproven and invalid about this assay?

LOL YOU MY FRIEND HAVE NO READING COMPREHENSION OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

I don't get it? My comment was with science in general and it's fallibility, specifically commenting on the idea that science is this end all be all of knowledge; I was not attempting to prove or disprove God. History is littered with "failed" theories i.e sun around the earth, Atoms being the smallest thing in the universe etc.

My point is that science is not the end all be all for knowledge, to take it further, it's not even reliable "knowledge." I'm a classical skeptic in the same manner as Hume and Descartes when it comes to Epistomology.

As far as God, I think Philosophers have come up with some pretty good arguments for the existence of God, better than those in any religious text that I have read.

As far as knowledge, the only one reliable piece of knowledge to me is "Cogito Ergo Sum" "I think therefore I am" and even Berkley has a reasonably convincing argument against that, so I'm not even 100% on that, will require further thought and analysis.

And as I said, didn't mean to derail this thread I made a passing comment about scientist reading philosophy, then I must defend why I don't believe science to be a reliable source of knowledge. No problems with defending it, it's just hard when everyone believes whole heartily in science.

First of all, I posted those to show that it is still just a "theory" not a proven fact, could care less what they say because I can post 1000 articles and all of them will say that evolution is still a theory. As I've said you'll only bring up more observations, which many many philosophers/scientist before me have acknowledged can be false. So the question to you is....Do you believe that I am a real person? Do you believe that the sun will "rise" tomorrow? These are the "absolutes" I speak of, the things that you don't doubt in life.Philosophers speak of them to question them whereas most people just believe that there are other people in this world, without ever actually questioning that. Epistemology, check it out I beg of thee.

Again, you state "facts" and "evidence" that have no merit and DO NOT support your claims.

Science is seeking the knowledge it never has stated it is and or knows all the knowledge.

So basically you are saying you don't believe in anything and if anyone in the world brings up a fact you will rebut them, correct?  Arguing for the sake of arguing since YOU DON'T believe, and you are SKEPTIC. Well, If it sound like a troll, posts like a troll, and thinks like a troll.

So now you're contradicting yourself. You don't believe in the only reliable piece of information in this world, which is still someone's OPINION.  What if I asked why to that? How do I know that I am thinking? What if I am a machine that is programed to think that I am thinking? Answer that.

And, again you failed at arguing that science is not reliable.

LOL evolution is a theory because scientist are so critical and won't call it fact. A 1000 articles from where? youtube expert's blogs? Read a peer reviewed journal and then comeback to me.

As for your last ?s No I don't think you're a real person. I think you're an irl troll. NO, I don't know if the sun will rise, but I'll bet my life on it. 

And, Again, your absolutes are NOT absolutes in the science field. NO ONE (no scientists)  HAVE STATED THAT.  You fail yet again at discrediting science.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Lol I'm here to question and direct.

http://www.sparknotes.com.../problems/section6.rhtml -ATGD7 etc.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ - Black


These were two min. Google Searched, if you are really interested I could give you somethings to read....but people don't read so here is just a quick google search of the two.

The Absolutes I speak of are "The sun "rising" The fact that I am actually sitting on this computer typing. The fact that you are actually an other person and not a computer program meant to trick me. The fact that anyone beyond me actually exists. The "absolute truths.' A

 Honestly, Thought "absolutes" and "absolute truth" were terms that almost all "Philosophers" understood, as they are the basic ideas in the Mind V Body Debate

Fam I think you might be in the wrong thread if you want to discuss epistemology. All that "Is the table really there?" talk is philosophy 101. At a certain level you're just going to have to be able to accept or deal with empirical evidence, consciousness/sense of self, etc. If not you can question anything and never get the answer because nothing supporting an answer will

I'm not sure why you're asking questions with absolutes in mind (in regards to this topic) anyway. You're asking why the sun has to rise and set? Really? If you want subjective answers, sure go to religion but I don't recall ppl saying atheism or science would answer all questions and even if they did from an objective stance it's not a guarantee you'd be satisified. I can understand from a philosopher's perspective neither side might not have an absolute truth (see justified true beliefs/infinite regression) but it doesn't favor a side and leans on the fact that at any level we're all ignorant and we'll never really know. If you look at Buddhism there's a whole set of questions the Buddha won't bother addressing cuz he thinks they're for fools; creation being one of them.
 
So in the broadest terms yes it's conceivable a fact the sun won't always "rise and set" because it's eventually going to run out of gas and implode or start producing iron. As for where we and the galaxy came from I'm sure you can look up a google search and get science's best answer to that question to date but if you just want to infinitely regress back on questioning where did that come from and where what preceded that come from I don't see how you could accept a religious based GOD of the gaps answer.

 

[blackxme]

bboy1827 wrote:

---

Lol I'm here to question and direct.

http://www.sparknotes.com.../problems/section6.rhtml -ATGD7 etc.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ - Black


These were two min. Google Searched, if you are really interested I could give you somethings to read....but people don't read so here is just a quick google search of the two.

The Absolutes I speak of are "The sun "rising" The fact that I am actually sitting on this computer typing. The fact that you are actually an other person and not a computer program meant to trick me. The fact that anyone beyond me actually exists. The "absolute truths.' A


 Honestly, Thought "absolutes" and "absolute truth" were terms that almost all "Philosophers" understood, as they are the basic ideas in the Mind V Body Debate


The link you posted discusses irreducible complexity, yet time after time biologists have demonstrated that irreducible complexity is nothing more than rubbish. I'd also add that there is a clear bias for creationism on the behalf of Michael Denton. People who like to claim that we are designed love to point to the eye as something that is far too complex to have evolved, yet all over the animal kingdom you find eyes that look like they are in various stages of evolution. I'd also like you to check out these links: link 1 link2 . I doubt this will satisfy you as far as a rebuttal is concerned but there are great explanations of evolution in the things I posted.
Richard Dawkins discusses the evolution of the eye here:

 

[jaysrcrak]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

If my position never changed, then how am I going in circles?

You have misinterpreted every single post that you have challenged



Example: I said this

JaysRcrak wrote:

Why do athiests always want you to PROVE there is a God, when you cant PROVE what you believe in?

The scientific explanation of creation has as many holes in it as the religious explanation.



The truth is it doesnt matter. This debate will never end.

But in the genius that is PleasurePhD's brain you interpreted that I said this:

PleasurePhD wrote:

First return post you made, every religious person claims to know God exists and can prove it.

How in the hell did you jump to that conclusion?



Example 2:

In response to Sillyputty's remark that "No one says anything without proof"

I talk about IgG subclass assays(referring to predictive value of subclass specific IgG for succesful immuno-therapy)

and your rebuttal is about IgEs.

This is why I stopped acknowledging you. Because you don't read with comprehension.

How can you post a rebuttal if you dont even understand what a person is saying?
WOW good job taking my words out of context to support some false notion of me not understanding you. Either you are doing that or you just plain don't have nay reading comprehension. Here is the full response that describes why I stated that first sentence:

1. First return post you made, every religious person claims to know God
exists and can prove it. NOT every scientist believes in the Big Bang
Theory. Which is misnamed, it actually is a hypothesis. We can't prove
the BBT is correct but at least we have theoretical models, and
mathematics that support it. The existence of God has NONE! THE TRUTH IS
yes some scientist believe in things that can't be tested at the
moment, but they believe in those things because of all the indirect
supporting evidence and theoretical models. For example the existence of
aliens is based on OUR existence. If WE exist and WE are a tiny speck
in the universe it doesn't sound so improbable that other life exists on
one of the other billions of planets. There are a lot of scientists who
don't believe that aliens exist as well as the BBT. There aren't a lot
of religious individuals that don't think a God exists. That's the
difference in why you need proof of an existence of a God and scientists
don't need (even though they have some) proof of hypotheses being true.
Why again? because THEY ARE HYPOTHESES.

LOL

Genius, IgG subclasses are not the only antibodies in the human immune system. IgG antibodies are the most abundant, but IgE play a very important role in allergen recognition. Do you even know WTH you are typing lol. An IgG subclass assay determines the type of subclass that particular person is producing, during an immune response. Your adaptive immune system produces certain subclasses of IgG in certain percentages in order to combat a foreign antigen. Knowing this information you can then determine how to better treat a patient, for example how to treat them using immunosuppression, or activation. Possibly immunotherapy with non-native antibodies as well. You can even get a better understanding of what he or she is fighting off. This assay is 100% proven and well researched. It saves lives in hospitals. So what is so unproven and invalid about this assay?

LOL YOU MY FRIEND HAVE NO READING COMPREHENSION OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM.




1. How did I take your words out of context? The rest of your statement has nothing to do with you putting words in my mouth.
How does this statement: Why do athiests always want you to PROVE there is a God, when you cant PROVE what you believe in?
Equal this statement: "...every religious person claims to know God exists and can prove it." IT DOESNT. AND IT NEVER WILL.
I said one thing and you turn around and said I stated something completely different from what I actually stated. How is that hard to understand?

2. I know how IgGs work. But yes, the are absolutely an unproven method for diagnosing food allergies, which is what I said in my original post.
Once again, comprehension. You have none.

And then you turn around and agree with what I am saying in the first place. Which is Science has no real proof for certain things. For example how the universe was created.
Just because you observe something does not make your observations correct. Which is why I posted about Hubble's constant, which has been proven to be incorrect.

 

[blackxme]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Again, you state "facts" and "evidence" that have no merit and DO NOT support your claims.

Science is seeking the knowledge it never has stated it is and or knows all the knowledge.

So basically you are saying you don't believe in anything and if any one in the world brings up a fact you will rebut them, correct?  Arguing for the sake of arguing since YOU DON'T belie and you are SKEPTIC. Well, If it sound like a troll, posts like a troll, and thinks like a troll.

So now you're contradicting yourself. You don't believe in the only reliable piece of information in this world, which is still someone's OPINION.  What if I said why to that. How do I know that I am thinking? What if I am a machine that is programed to think that I am thinking? Answer that.

And, you failed at arguing that science is not reliable.

LOL evolution is a theory because scientist are so critical and won't call it fact. A 1000 articles form where? youtube experts blogs? Read a peer reviewed journal and then comeback to me.

As for your last ?s No I don't think you're a real person. I think you're a irl troll. NO, I don't know if the sun will rise, but I'll be my life on it. 

And, Again, your absolutes are NOT absolutes in the science field. NO ONE (no scientists)  HAVE STATED THAT.  You fail yet again at discrediting science.

At the end of the day you either accept empirical evidence or you don't, simple as that. Many science concepts aren't hard to grasp; and yeah it isn't static but it is always changing for the better.
Science accepts change in long accepted theories as long as there is sound evidence. For instance: Newton wasn't wrong, to this day students are taught Newton's three laws of gravity. Einstein simply built upon Newton and he made us understand why gravity works. This point has been made again and again in this thread but if science weren't reliable how the hell would anything on this planet work. The shear fact that we are able to sit at home on our electronic devices and have this debate is a testament to science. How would anything work if science wasn't reliable? If you choose not to trust science by all means go ahead but don't completely bash it as if it is useless.

 

[tune205]

Do computer chips believe in Bill Gates? Or do they just do what they were programmed and use the science it was given?
What would you call the computer chips who were aware of Bill Gates? 

Probably will go over your heads 

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

If my position never changed, then how am I going in circles?

You have misinterpreted every single post that you have challenged



Example: I said this



But in the genius that is PleasurePhD's brain you interpreted that I said this:







How in the hell did you jump to that conclusion?



Example 2:

In response to Sillyputty's remark that "No one says anything without proof"

I talk about IgG subclass assays(referring to predictive value of subclass specific IgG for succesful immuno-therapy)

and your rebuttal is about IgEs.

This is why I stopped acknowledging you. Because you don't read with comprehension.

How can you post a rebuttal if you dont even understand what a person is saying?

WOW good job taking my words out of context to support some false notion of me not understanding you. Either you are doing that or you just plain don't have nay reading comprehension. Here is the full response that describes why I stated that first sentence:

1. First return post you made, every religious person claims to know God
exists and can prove it. NOT every scientist believes in the Big Bang
Theory. Which is misnamed, it actually is a hypothesis. We can't prove
the BBT is correct but at least we have theoretical models, and
mathematics that support it. The existence of God has NONE! THE TRUTH IS
yes some scientist believe in things that can't be tested at the
moment, but they believe in those things because of all the indirect
supporting evidence and theoretical models. For example the existence of
aliens is based on OUR existence. If WE exist and WE are a tiny speck
in the universe it doesn't sound so improbable that other life exists on
one of the other billions of planets. There are a lot of scientists who
don't believe that aliens exist as well as the BBT. There aren't a lot
of religious individuals that don't think a God exists. That's the
difference in why you need proof of an existence of a God and scientists
don't need (even though they have some) proof of hypotheses being true.
Why again? because THEY ARE HYPOTHESES.

LOL

Genius, IgG subclasses are not the only antibodies in the human immune system. IgG antibodies are the most abundant, but IgE play a very important role in allergen recognition. Do you even know WTH you are typing lol. An IgG subclass assay determines the type of subclass that particular person is producing, during an immune response. Your adaptive immune system produces certain subclasses of IgG in certain percentages in order to combat a foreign antigen. Knowing this information you can then determine how to better treat a patient, for example how to treat them using immunosuppression, or activation. Possibly immunotherapy with non-native antibodies as well. You can even get a better understanding of what he or she is fighting off. This assay is 100% proven and well researched. It saves lives in hospitals. So what is so unproven and invalid about this assay?

LOL YOU MY FRIEND HAVE NO READING COMPREHENSION OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM.

1. How did I take your words out of context? The rest of your statement has nothing to do with you putting words in my mouth.
How does this statement: Why do athiests always want you to PROVE there is a God, when you cant PROVE what you believe in?
Equal this statement: "...every religious person claims to know God exists and can prove it." IT DOESNT. AND IT NEVER WILL.
I said one thing and you turn aroung and said I stated something completely different from what I actually stated. How is that hard to understand?

2. I know how IgGs work. But yes, the are absolutely an unproven method for diagnosing food allergies, which is what I said in my original post.
Once again, comprehension. You have none.

3. And then you turn around and agree with what I am saying in the first place. Which is Science has no real proof for certain things. For example how the universe was created.
Just because you observe something does not make your observations correct. Which is why I posted about Hubble's constant, which has been proven to be incorrect.

1. You want to know how? Look up. You just did it again by enlarging a only a PORTION OF my sentence. NOT EVEN a portion of a paragraph, but a sentence. That is using my words of out context LOL. GD man. I enlarged and recolored the entire sentence so it is in its proper context now.


[h2]con·text[/h2]   /ˈkɒn

tɛkst/ Show Spelled[kon-tekst] Show IPA
noun
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.



1. Putting words in your mouth? WHEN THE EFF DID I EVER SAY YOU EVEN SAID THAT? I SAID THAT. I was using MY OWN words to describe to you that your statement is wrong. That it is the theists who are asking for the proof of science in order to deflect from the question of the proof of God. This is why it was relevant for me to say "every religious person claims to know God exists and can prove it" while then saying  "NOT every scientist believes in the Big Bang" and then "We can't prove the BBT is correct but at least we have theoretical models, and  mathematics that support it. The existence of God has NONE!

1. How hard is it to understand I WAS MAKING A STATEMENT. I NEVER SAID YOU SAID THAT OR YOUR WORDS ARE IMPLYING OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT. I WAS PROVING A POINT TO REFUTE YOUR COMMENT.

2. OMG you obviously don't know how IgG or any part of the immune system works. I am not going to repeat myself and try to help you understand why IgG doesn't account for all systemic reactions to food allergens. May be you can use your brain and figure out on your own why they have multiple tests for food allergens, may be you will find the answer there. It's like saying why doesn't the HIV test determine whether you have HPV. Lastly,  YOU STILL AREN'T ADDRESSING HOW IT IS UNPROVEN AND UNRELIABLE. WHICH, IS THE MAIN POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE, THAT IT IS PROVEN. JUST KEEP DANCING AROUND THAT QUESTION AND SAYING I DON'T HAVE READING COMPREHENSION.

3. Trust me I agree with nothing you're saying. Again, you took that passage out of context to fit your needs and argument. Observation is only the first step in the scientific method. And, we already address the your Hubble law.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Final post in this thread because I can def see there is no point, you guys even if you do get it refuse to acknowledge the validity of Epistemology...


A) I said metaphysical certainty, sorry questions is what I have, questions that may never be answered, such as "Is there a world outside of my head"

B) Science cannot disprove God...in fact, as I've stated, the more I learn about science the more I believe in "God the Creator"

C) Epistemology is what you're arguing against, Epistemology.

and lastly.....

It's funny how from your very first post I knew you, just like the last guy in here talking about metaphysics, were philosophy majors or minors.

And as stated in my very first post to you when I hypothesized this (it has now ran through the scientific method and has been tested and proven to be a theory) :

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by blackxme

bboy1827 wrote:

---

Lol I'm here to question and direct.

http://www.sparknotes.com.../problems/section6.rhtml -ATGD7 etc.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ - Black


These were two min. Google Searched, if you are really interested I could give you somethings to read....but people don't read so here is just a quick google search of the two.

The Absolutes I speak of are "The sun "rising" The fact that I am actually sitting on this computer typing. The fact that you are actually an other person and not a computer program meant to trick me. The fact that anyone beyond me actually exists. The "absolute truths.' A


�Honestly, Thought "absolutes" and "absolute truth" were terms that almost all "Philosophers" understood, as they are the basic ideas in the Mind V Body Debate

The link you posted discusses irreducible complexity, yet time after time biologists have demonstrated that irreducible complexity is nothing more than rubbish. I'd also add that there is a clear bias for creationism on the behalf of Michael Denton. People who like to claim that we are designed love to point to the eye as something that is far too complex to have evolved, yet all over the animal kingdom you find eyes that look like they are in� various stages of evolution. I'd also like you to check out these links: link 1 link2 . I doubt this will satisfy you as far as a rebuttal is concerned but there are great explanations of evolution in the things I posted.�
Richard Dawkins discusses the evolution of the eye here:


GREAT post and video man, props

 

[jaysrcrak]

I dont even know why I keep replying to your nonsense. It is clear that you have a hard time understanding things. So this will the last time I reply to you.

1. Having" indirect supporting evidence and theoretical models does not change the fact that scientists do at times believe in things that cannot be tested.

Which is the original point I was making to sillyputty. That's like saying I have "indirect supporting evidence that God exist." Indirect supporting evidence" does not hold up.



2. I have said over and over. There is absolutely no evidence that IgG diagnose food allergies.

But since you are so big on evidence here are a few link to support what I am saying
Archive Solutions
Mch.com(Miami Childrens Hospital)
AllergyOnline
Hecapedia(Healthcare Encyclopedia)
FoodConsumer.Org
Healthier You
The Australasian Society Of Clinical Immunology and Allergy
National Guidline Clearinghouse

I am done with your bafoonery, clown.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Final post in this thread because I can def see there is no point, you guys even if you do get it refuse to acknowledge the validity of Epistemology...


A) I said metaphysical certainty, sorry questions is what I have, questions that may never be answered, such as "Is there a world outside of my head"

B) Science cannot disprove God...in fact, as I've stated, the more I learn about science the more I believe in "God the Creator"

C) Epistemology is what you're arguing against, Epistemology.

You guys spent all this time debating with a solipsist. Maybe when he learns to accept real life he can actually engage in an honest discussion about science and religion.

 

[b smooth 202]

'Charles Darwin (1859, p. 30 recognised that the sudden appearance of a diverse and highly derived fossil fauna in the Cambrian posed a problem for his theory of natural selection, "and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Two obvious possibilities are that animal life did, indeed, evolve very abruptly about that time, or, alternatively, had existed long before, but that, for whatever reason, we have failed to find fossil evidence: the "late-" and "early-arrival" models, respectively.'



[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]these losers really idolize Darwin...I swear this Atheist crap is all conceptualized by Europeans: 'DARWIN IS MY HERO'  

 

[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

I dont even know why I keep replying to your nonsense. It is clear that you have a hard time understanding things. So this will the last time I reply to you.

1. Having" indirect supporting evidence and theoretical models does not change the fact that scientists do at times believe in things that cannot be tested.

Which is the original point I was making to sillyputty. That's like saying I have "indirect supporting evidence that God exist." Indirect supporting evidence" does not hold up.



2. I have said over and over. There is absolutely no evidence that IgG diagnose food allergies.

But since you are so big on evidence here are a few link to support what I am saying
Archive Solutions
Mch.com(Miami Childrens Hospital)
AllergyOnline
Hecapedia(Healthcare Encyclopedia)
FoodConsumer.Org
Healthier You
The Australasian Society Of Clinical Immunology and Allergy
National Guidline Clearinghouse

I am done with your bafoonery, clown.

1. As stated before, the limit of our technology is the only reason why we only have supporting indirect evidence. What will you say when we have the technology and it is proven to be right? This is a small subsection of science, mostly relating to quantum mechanics and astrophysics. Mostly all other areas of science have been proven to be fact, we just call them theories.  Also, the keywords you used are AT TIMES, they believe (in actuality belief is the wrong word, they hypothesize), but never do they consider them facts that are 100% certain. Unlike religion which has NO SUPPORTING DIRECT OR INDIRECT EVIDENCE, NO THEORETICAL MODELS THAT CAN BE TESTED USING MATHEMATICS OR PHYSICAL LAW. YET THEY STILL BELIEVE. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE AND WHAT I KEEP TRYING TO GET YOU TO UNDERSTAND. 



2. Trust me I don't need you to link me all these sites about food allergies. I already know. My last post to you already stated that I knew why an IgG subclass assay or any of the other tests you mentioned were questionable. I told you to read into it instead of just doing a google search that just says it.  You need to provide the evidence that proves that it is not reliable, isn't that what you have been saying? That individuals need to show their proof if they are going to ask for proof? I don't need you to. I already know. But, again I am just making a statement on your original post, to prove a point. What you are also not understanding is that I am trying to tell you scientist have good reason to think and test these assays for discovering food allergies. I ADMIT I was extrapolating from your posts and using them to discuss other uses for these diagnostic tools to show you that they are IN FACT PROVEN AND VALID. I WASN'T MERELY DISCUSSING FOOD ALLERGENS.




So I do apologize for not making that clear. If you want me to say it then I will. I won't be an ***. You are right about them being controversial. Sorry to dance around that fact just to prove a point. Even though there are times they have been successful. If you understood the science behind them, the immune system, and the cell; you would understand why they are controversial, yet still warrant testing. This is what I'm getting at is that you don't know the science behind it. You are just googling information that states information without evidence or proof. My second point is, If you are going to post something to prove or validate your opinion then you must know about the topic. You clearly don't or else you wouldn't be posting that information on how an IgG (which is found in your blood) subclass assay wouldn't be reliable to test a food (food being separated from your bloodstream by a barrier of tissues and extracellular proteins) allergy. You wouldn't post that as your evidence. You should have just stuck to aliens and the big bang theory.




Even though I can admit I was wrong for not being more clear and I did dance around the fact that they are controversial, still it was to prove a point that scientist "believe" and do things for a reason. Including these unproven controversial diagnostic assays.

Really, I'm the clown? You shout reading comprehension, yet you don't even know what I'm trying to say/prove. You are knit-picking on the fact that I didn't down and right out agree and say yes those tests are controversial, when if I had said that and THEN,  provided my support backing the assays, you would have just taken my words out of context again saying I'm flipping and agree with you. And, you still haven't answered my questions or comments on the true subject we were discussing. As well as you still haven't provided me with any information as to why these assays are unreliable, which is not the same a unproven. YOUR LINKS DO NOT PROVIDE ME WITH SAID INFORMATION. THEY STATE THAT THEY ARE UNPROVEN AND CONTROVERSIAL. THEY DON'T SAY WHY AND THEY DON'T SAY THAT THEY ARE UNRELIABLE. YOU SIR ARE THE CLOWN.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

'Charles Darwin (1859, p. 30 recognised that the sudden appearance of a diverse and highly derived fossil fauna in the Cambrian posed a problem for his theory of natural selection, "and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Two obvious possibilities are that animal life did, indeed, evolve very abruptly about that time, or, alternatively, had existed long before, but that, for whatever reason, we have failed to find fossil evidence: the "late-" and "early-arrival" models, respectively.'



[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]these losers really idolize Darwin...I swear this Atheist crap is all conceptualized by Europeans: 'DARWIN IS MY HERO'  

 

[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

You might want to cite your source(s).

 

[kramer]

2 things: pleasurePhD how do we know you actually have a phd? And 2nd can we just all agree that no one is going to be convinced of anything and lock this up

 

[blackxme]

Originally Posted by B Smooth 202

'Charles Darwin (1859, p. 30 recognised that the sudden appearance of a diverse and highly derived fossil fauna in the Cambrian posed a problem for his theory of natural selection, "and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." Two obvious possibilities are that animal life did, indeed, evolve very abruptly about that time, or, alternatively, had existed long before, but that, for whatever reason, we have failed to find fossil evidence: the "late-" and "early-arrival" models, respectively.'



[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]these losers really idolize Darwin...I swear this Atheist crap is all conceptualized by Europeans: 'DARWIN IS MY HERO'  

 

[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

The Cambrian explosion really? This is just another weak argument on the behalf of creationists. You need to know where you're getting your information from. Have you studied biology or evolution
on any other level besides high school? But of course to you I'm a loser and essentially misguided so anything I say won't really resonate.
Why did the major groups of animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, known as the Cambrian Explosion?

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This statement is false, and seriously misleads students as to the actual natural history of this planet. The term "major group" is without scientific meaning. Many students, for example, might regard the mammals as a "major group." Mammals, however, did not appear during the Cambrian explosion, but rather in the Triassic, nearly 300 million years later. The same can be said of birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians, each of which are "major groups" in the ordinary meaning of that term, and none of which appeared in the Cambrian period. Clearly, the authors of the statement could have prevented such confusion by referring only to the animal phyla instead of "major groups." [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Unfortunately, even if they had done so, the statement would still be false. All animal phyla did not originate during the Cambrian. Compounding this serious mistake, the authors of the disclaimer seem to be unaware that the first multicellular animals appeared on earth during the Ediacaran period, and many predate the Cambrian by more than 100 million years.[/font]

And that is written by Kenneth Miller, who actually is a theist, who has done plenty of work to disprove creationist and intelligent design arguments.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

I think the main point is that the Cambrian does not pose any issues for what we currently know about natural selection. That's why I'm interested to see the source that was used.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Kramer

2 things: pleasurePhD how do we know you actually have a phd? And 2nd can we just all agree that no one is going to be convinced of anything and lock this up

1. You actually don't know, but you could ask.

2. I kind of agree, yet I still have so many unanswered questions. I would especially like to hear from JaysRcrak, and his opinion on my last post. Seeing how I apologized to him and admitted fault can he get over it and  finally actually answer my real questions and comments.

 

[kramer]

Well do you? You just seem very unprofessional for how learned you claim to be

 

[blackxme]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

I think the main point is that the Cambrian does not pose any issues for what we currently know about natural selection. That's why I'm interested to see the source that was used.

Here is his source: link

 

[pleasurephd]

I am sick and tired of all of you attacking science and asking for proof of science theories.

This is a discussion about God, not science.

And, if you haven't realized science is not some, thing, it's not some physical or even metaphysical being or object. It's a field of knowledge and research. It is not a singular object which can be discredited by a single statement. The entire field of science will not be proven unreliable by proving the unreliability of one theorem in one branch of science. Not being able to "absolutely" prove one theoretical aspect does not invalidate the entire field. But, a single piece of empirical evidence WOULD prove that God doesn't exist.

Just because you can find holes in some individual aspect of theoretical science such as quantum mechanics, doesn't discredit all of the thousands and thousand of other branches of science. Unlike the notion of a single or even multiple Gods existing. If one day the existence of God is proven to be false then every aspect of religion collapses. This does not hold true for the various DIFFERENT branches of science.

So please stop equating the two. 

God (a single or even multiple omnipotent beings)  does not = Science (a wide and varied field of knowledge, information, evidence, and research)

Science does not = religion (an belief system where individuals blindly have faith with no evidence or research)

 

[cubanref]

Originally Posted by NikeAirForce1

What makes you believe that a god exists?  The question is geared toward anyone that believes in a god.

Why do I care whether you believe or not?  Answer:  I don't.   I just want to know why you believe. 

If the basis for your beliefs can be scientifically explained or falsified with facts,  I won't be holding back any information.

I am not a religious person at all and I do understand that a lot can be proved by science, but at the same time there are things that happen in life that are just unexplainable 

...there are just too many things that we will never know or understand

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Kramer

Well do you? You just seem very unprofessional for how learned you claim to be

In this thread I have never claimed to hold any degrees except for one in philosophy. I guess I have implied that I am knowledgeable in science topics, but I don't recall claiming that. I will, at this moment, claim that I do have knowledge in the subject area, but I still feel like am far from knowing everything, and do not claim to be an expert. There are many many individuals who know a ton more, in every field I have commented on.

Since you asked, I do not have my PhD yet. I am currently well into a biomedical science PhD program, and the way that things are going do not see why I will not have attained my PhD in a short amount of time. I have fulfilled all the dept. requirements and am basically waiting for the go ahead and graduate from my PI.

I have do have 5 other degrees, 4 undergraduate (I wanted to keep my options open lol) and one graduate level.

Undergrad: BA in philosophy, BS in molecular biology, BS in microbiology, BS in clinical laboratory science. Minor in Chemistry.

Graduate: MS in cellular and molecular biology with a concentration in stem cell biology. My thesis was written on my research in drug discovery against breast cancer "stem" cells. But, my PhD work is more in the field of stem cell tissue and organ regeneration/engineering.

Edit: My SN was created while in grad school, obviously. I am a fairly new member. It was jokingly suppose to stand for Pleasure P... hD meaning Dr. Pleasure, and at the same time have similarity to Pleasure P the R&B singer.