Can science really disprove somethings existence?

[achilles12604]

Usually the argument goes something like this . . .

Theist: God exists.

Science: How do you know?

Theist: 1) origin of the universe, biblical history, personal experience, origin of life, etc

Science: And how do you know that the universe didn't just pop into being without God. Your personal experience doesn't count as evidence, and history can be wrong.

Theist: Well what makes you think God doesn't exist.

science: I am totally unable to detect any sign of him at all and science is the best method we have for detecting and studying things in the universe.

You don't need to answer. My point is very simply that bible thumpers and science thumpers sometimes have similar issues regarding their claims of total knowledge. Neither can truly get the whole picture alone.

But what picture is this? Lets say there is more to this world than science knows. How do we know this? What methodology do we deploy? And the point I’ve been banging on about over several threads the last few days is the only correct method for addressing reality is naturalism because only naturalism can meet the full set of criteria: prediction, verification, falsification and assigns a clear definition to all the signs it deploys in its answers. Any explanation that fails to meet this benchmark is intellectually vacuous. Regardless of the depth of conviction of any given non naturalistic belief.

However I detect that this point is not lost on you achilles because you make great attempts to rationalise your belief system, and I know you think that what is supernatural is only what science does not yet understand. That is easy for a full blown naturalist to admit. What we cannot admit is that the theist can fill in the gaps.

I guess this is where some degree of theistic faith comes in. Hey that gives me a thought. Is faith provable by science? For example, would science be able to determine someone's beliefs? If science is unable to determine someone's beliefs and faith, does that mean that the person's faith does not exist?

My questions for discussion.

Is science able to determine someone's beliefs without being told? Another possible question to clarify this point is can science prove that someone who is now dead, had beliefs while alive?

If silence is maintained and a person's beliefs can not be determined, does this mean the beliefs do not exist?

[muhammad rasullah]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

[realthinker]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

There has been no break in the changes. It's well known that over the last measurable generations people have been growing taller. They've also been growing heavier, at least in the US and other developed areas. The genes that have driven humans to retain excess calories as fat is pretty obviously a holdover from when we didn't have food delivered to us and we ate all we needed every day. Now that attribute is working to kill us as our environment lets us live decades longer. Another several generations and it's likely humans will be thin again.

It's not like the changes suggested are a random third eye or arm. They'll be subtle, but will accumulate over generations. Evolution works over millions of years, not from generation to generation.

[Beto]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

Don't you think you should, by your own initiative, research a bit to achieve a basic understanding of biological evolution theory, before you think about debating on the issue?

[muhammad rasullah]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

There has been no break in the changes. It's well known that over the last measurable generations people have been growing taller. They've also been growing heavier, at least in the US and other developed areas. The genes that have driven humans to retain excess calories as fat is pretty obviously a holdover from when we didn't have food delivered to us and we ate all we needed every day. Now that attribute is working to kill us as our environment lets us live decades longer. Another several generations and it's likely humans will be thin again.

It's not like the changes suggested are a random third eye or arm. They'll be subtle, but will accumulate over generations. Evolution works over millions of years, not from generation to generation.

where is the proof or evidence to this statement that this is a process of evolution. again this is only conjecture and a theory of speculation with no validity. This change could simply be attributed to what people are eating.

[muhammad rasullah]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

Don't you think you should, by your own initiative, research a bit to achieve a basic understanding of biological evolution theory, before you think about debating on the issue?

I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true. I don't think my questions are unreasonable they may seem unreasonable because science doesn't have any answer for them.

[byofrcs]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

Don't you think you should, by your own initiative, research a bit to achieve a basic understanding of biological evolution theory, before you think about debating on the issue?

I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true. I don't think my questions are unreasonable they may seem unreasonable because science doesn't have any answer for them.

No it is because the question is just plain stupid. e.g. you asked, "How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.".

Facts are that humans and apes had a common ancestor around 5 to 7 million years ago. Today humans and apes are seperate species both of which have evolved over those 5 or so million years according to the particular niche that the species resides in.

A human cannot naturally breed with an ape and even if with some genetic engineering we could solve the problem of hybridization when you have a mismatch of chromosomes (chimps have 48 we have 46) the resulting hybrid would not be a human (nor would it be a chimp) and it would probably be sterile (as with mules in which they too have a differing number of chromosomes of the two species: donkeys have 62 chromosomes, whereas horses have 64.)

Chromosome differences are not always that clear-cut - Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, and as I'd mentioned above the domestic horse has 64 but of these two species breed then they produce fertile offspring, possessing 65 chromosomes.

Being sterile is an evolutionary dead-end. You don't get a new "species", you get nothing. So the two species, early-humans and early-apes, even if they did mate many ears ago if the results were sterile then that would be the evolutionary end. Once that happens then the two species go their own way forever.

What you are expecting is that by mating apes and humans you rewind 6 million years of evolution and end up with a human ? If this is what you've been told then the people telling you this are just plain liars if they purport to be teachers of some sort.

Come one - think for yourself.

[MrWhy]

78:12 And (have We not) built over you the seven firmaments
78:13 And placed (therein) a Light of Splendour?

In the above verse, the word "light" is used for the Moon ("nooran" in Arabic) and the word "lamp" for the Sun ("sirajan" in Arabic.) The word used for the Moon refers to a light-reflecting, bright, motionless body. The word used for the Sun refers to a celestial body which is always burning, a constant source of heat and light.

On the other hand, the word "star" comes from the Arabic root "nejeme," meaning "appearing, emerging, visible." As in the verse below, stars are also referred to by the word "thaqib," which is used for that which shines and pierces the darkness with light: self-consuming and burning.

86:3 (It is) the Star of piercing brightness;-
We now know that the Moon does not emit its own light but reflects that reaching it from the Sun. We also know that the Sun and stars do emit their own light. These facts were revealed in the Qur'an in an age when mankind simply did not have the means to make scientific discoveries of their own accord. It was an age when peoples' knowledge of celestial bodies was severely restricted, to say the least. This further emphasises the miraculous nature of the book of Islam.

Simple observation shows the sun as much brighter than the moon and would easily account for using different words to describe them. If the Quran had said specifically that the light from the moon was reflected from the sun it would have been a little more impressive. Also the Quran should have known that the moon circled the earth, and they both circled the sun. It does not reveal this important bit of info that a creator god would have known.

You’re asking that I accept your definition of some Arabic words, and then also a certain translation to English. There’s a lot of wiggle room there. I’ll bet there are interpretations and translations available that don’t mean the moon was a reflector. Here is another translation.

“The Sun is a shining glory (diya') and the Moon a light (nur).”
Where does it say the moon is a reflector, and is reflecting light from the sun?

The example you give is interpreting scripture creatively to make it mean what you want. This is a very loose way of creating "facts", and is not sufficient to support the extraordinary claim that the Quran has information only a god could have known. This is a profound idea and needs more substantial clear evidence that what is available. This lack of rigorous method not be acceptable in any endeavor except scripture interpretation. Many professions are not allowed so much wiggle room in their results. We insist that engineers, financial advisors, physicians, etc. have reason and evidence for what they do, but religious leaders are not held to the same standard. Intelligent people lower their requirements for evidence when pressed about their religious faith.



Some stars generate light and some are just planets reflecting light. The Quran’s divine source should have known that all shining stars are not suns. Not very precise info considering that it was supposed to come from an all-knowing god. There are thousands of facts about the universe that a creator god should have known, and had they been revealed clearly they would be easily verified by current knowledge. None of those claims in the Quran are specific enough to be considered scientific knowledge. They appear to be desperate attempts to find divine knowledge where it does not exist.

[muhammad rasullah]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

Don't you think you should, by your own initiative, research a bit to achieve a basic understanding of biological evolution theory, before you think about debating on the issue?

I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true. I don't think my questions are unreasonable they may seem unreasonable because science doesn't have any answer for them.

No it is because the question is just plain stupid. e.g. you asked, "How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.".

A human cannot naturally breed with an ape and even if with some genetic engineering we could solve the problem of hybridization when you have a mismatch of chromosomes (chimps have 48 we have 46) the resulting hybrid would not be a human (nor would it be a chimp) and it would probably be sterile (as with mules in which they too have a differing number of chromosomes of the two species: donkeys have 62 chromosomes, whereas horses have 64.)

Chromosome differences are not always that clear-cut - Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, and as I'd mentioned above the domestic horse has 64 but of these two species breed then they produce fertile offspring, possessing 65 chromosomes.

Being sterile is an evolutionary dead-end. You don't get a new "species", you get nothing. So the two species, early-humans and early-apes, even if they did mate many ears ago if the results were sterile then that would be the evolutionary end. Once that happens then the two species go their own way forever.

What you are expecting is that by mating apes and humans you rewind 6 million years of evolution and end up with a human ? If this is what you've been told then the people telling you this are just plain liars if they purport to be teachers of some sort.

Come one - think for yourself.

Facts are that humans and apes had a common ancestor around 5 to 7 million years ago. Today humans and apes are seperate species both of which have evolved over those 5 or so million years according to the particular niche that the species resides in.

This may seem stupid to you but logical for me. I only know what i see. I see apes and I see humans but what I don't see is this other species which they are both ancestors from, again where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence for this? And if they did exist what made them become sterile that they cannot procreate anymore? you don't have to explain what the end result of this cross breeding would be i already know. Please somebody answer my question. where is this evidence of this common ancestor?

Humans beget humans and apes beget apes if they are the same species why can't they beget the same offspring?

[byofrcs]

How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.

Please bear with me for a while and consider that evolution might be true. Can you think of a change that would make a human being more efficient in its environment? Can you think of a hundred? How about a thousand? How do you think all these changes could affect the way humans look like? Regardless of how dramatic the changes might be, would the species cease to be called Human to be called something else? What about one million changes ago? Why would the species be called something other than Human, because of how it looks at the time?

This makes no sense what are you really trying to say please make yourself clear and unambiguous? what are these changes that you speak of? And if this is the case why was there a break in these changes that occured why did they stop?

Don't you think you should, by your own initiative, research a bit to achieve a basic understanding of biological evolution theory, before you think about debating on the issue?

I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true. I don't think my questions are unreasonable they may seem unreasonable because science doesn't have any answer for them.

No it is because the question is just plain stupid. e.g. you asked, "How can there be no first member of humans i would surely like to see a human and an ape breed and produce another human being.".

A human cannot naturally breed with an ape and even if with some genetic engineering we could solve the problem of hybridization when you have a mismatch of chromosomes (chimps have 48 we have 46) the resulting hybrid would not be a human (nor would it be a chimp) and it would probably be sterile (as with mules in which they too have a differing number of chromosomes of the two species: donkeys have 62 chromosomes, whereas horses have 64.)

Chromosome differences are not always that clear-cut - Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, and as I'd mentioned above the domestic horse has 64 but of these two species breed then they produce fertile offspring, possessing 65 chromosomes.

Being sterile is an evolutionary dead-end. You don't get a new "species", you get nothing. So the two species, early-humans and early-apes, even if they did mate many ears ago if the results were sterile then that would be the evolutionary end. Once that happens then the two species go their own way forever.

What you are expecting is that by mating apes and humans you rewind 6 million years of evolution and end up with a human ? If this is what you've been told then the people telling you this are just plain liars if they purport to be teachers of some sort.

Come one - think for yourself.

Facts are that humans and apes had a common ancestor around 5 to 7 million years ago. Today humans and apes are seperate species both of which have evolved over those 5 or so million years according to the particular niche that the species resides in.

This may seem stupid to you but logical for me. I only know what i see. I see apes and I see humans but what I don't see is this other species which they are both ancestors from, again where is the evidence for this? Where is the evidence for this? And if they did exist what made them become sterile that they cannot procreate anymore? you don't have to explain what the end result of this cross breeding would be i already know. Please somebody answer my question. where is this evidence of this common ancestor?

Humans beget humans and apes beget apes if they are the same species why can't they beget the same offspring?

All of us, both you and I, see many people around the world but I do not see their ancestors. I don't see my great-great-grand parents, nor my great-great-great grandparents and so on down through time because they are dead.

Obviously we don't see the "common" ancestor too because it is dead.

Humans beget humans but no-one is saying that these are genetically identical. Our childen (and the offspring of apes) are subtly different. They are in fact genetically different but similar. These differences are naturally selected.

We know that we have ancestors but unless you are royalty or quite lucky, the recorded history fades in a few hundred years. Now consider the problem of identifying the common ancestor from before recorded history, from say before 30,000 years ago or 300,000 or even 3 million years.

That is what you are asking for.

What does happen though is that our genome records the broad flow of migrations. By comparing your genome with references you are able to work out where in the world your ancestors migrated though they do not show individuals.

The same applies to animals and plants.

DNA analysis allows you to show the broad relationships between populations as well as to show the precise relationships between near ancestors (you, your parents and grandparents): this is fact.

It also allows you to show the much broader relationships between species. This is highly regarded as being true and an extension of looking at near-relations.

So I cannot give you a common ancestor any more than you can give me your great-great-great grandparents but DNA analysis will show relationships between your family which would match your recorded history and this same technique can show relationships between species.

By denying the results of DNA analysis for species you also cast doubts on this same technique for near-ancestors. This is a bit illogical.

You said; "I only know what i see", but a few posts ago you said that "...I really don't think it is necessary because the information that i recieve comes from those actually believe this to be true.". Which is it ? You look for yourself OR you get others to look for you ?.

[McCulloch]

If you examine both humans being and apes by structure and genetic make up then yes we have some similarities but you cannot define the two by this.

We classify all life by their similarities. Species, genus, phylum etc. Dogs, cats and bears are carnivores. Wolves and dogs are in the Canis genus. Gorillas, Chimpanzees and humans are apes.

If we go backwards then we must go further to the beginning and examine the purpose of our existence and creation.

No, we don't. We don't know why viruses were created, yet we can classify them.

Nothing is created without purpose!

That is yet to be shown.

also the capacity to which we can do and achieve things. Examine the things which make humans different from apes and if the differences out weigh the similarities then the conclusions is obvious.

Self locomotion, feeding, social relationships, raising young, growth, perception, reaction against pain, hunger, memory, susceptibility to infectious disease, and on and on. Humans have a lot more in common with the other apes than we have with starfish.

I am pretty sure many more things can be named that humans can do that apes can't.

I could name quite a few. None of them are what defines species of animals. Humans are the species of ape which builds machines, domesticates other animals, creates music and art, imagines supernatural gods, deliberately formulates laws etc.

Again if humans are apes we obviously have to had evolved from them please answer the question, where is the evidence of a talking monkey who speaks spanish or english, greek or slang or anything if this proof is given i have no arguement.

Beavers are rodents but not all rodents can build dams. Humans are primates, but not all primates have complex languages.