Evolution can be proved through fossils and other genetic information

“The professors brain” can be seen by scanners (if he ever happens to have a brain scan).

Theorem:
1. An idea that has been demonstrated as true or is assumed to be so demonstrable.
2. Mathematics. A proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions.

Relation with scientific theories

Although the first definition could possibly apply to science the term theorem is not used in science. It is mathematical term.

Relation with scientific theories

Theorems in mathematics and theories in science are fundamentally different in their epistemology. A scientific theory cannot be proven; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity. Mathematical theorems, on the other hand, are purely abstract formal statements: the proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories.

Theorem:
1. An idea that has been demonstrated as true or is assumed to be so demonstrable.
2. Mathematics. A proposition that has been or is to be proved on the basis of explicit assumptions.

It’s not used in science even if the first definition can apply.

Relation with scientific theories

Theorems in mathematics and theories in science are fundamentally different in their epistemology. A scientific theory cannot be proven; its key attribute is that it is falsifiable, that is, it makes predictions about the natural world that are testable by experiments. Any disagreement between prediction and experiment demonstrates the incorrectness of the scientific theory, or at least limits its accuracy or domain of validity. Mathematical theorems, on the other hand, are purely abstract formal statements: the proof of a theorem cannot involve experiments or other empirical evidence in the same way such evidence is used to support scientific theories.

“I’m evangelizing falsehoods? And you say you aren’t bashing my religion.Again, I never said that I could prove that god exists, and you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist, so it’s a standstill.”

I’m not bashing your faith. I’m bashing the annecdotal “evidence” you’ve posted here as being false. Big difference. If you put a post that you had faith in God and these are the reasons I would have left well enough alone. You didn’t, you posted “God’s Proof Over Science” meaning there should be some proof of God. Then you posted a poorly written story claiming that some student could quiet his professor with the weak arguments proposed. I am bashing this story as a falsehood. These arguments are weak and some completely meaningless.

Unless we can measure some sort of value for God and then reduce that value until there is only evil left these darkness and cold analogies are meaningless.

By the way I don’t have to prove God doesn’t exist. In fact you can’t prove that a celestial tea pot isn’t floating somewhere in the rings of saturn. You can’t prove that invisible pink unicorns don’t roam the earth. You can’t prove that God isn’t really a flying ball of spaghetti. That doesn’t make any of these statements true. If I assumed any of these positions I would have prove these statements. The default position would be that none of them are true unless there is evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims not the denier.

If I called you a murderer I would have to prove my claims. You would not be arrested on my assertion until you could prove that you did not in fact kill anyone ever. The default position is you can’t be accused of a murder until, first, there is a person that is dead and, second, that some how their death can be attributed to you.

theorem (noun)
—an idea accepted as a demonstrable truth

not just math.

Nice wikipedia articles, I sure trust them. /sarcasm

I still think god has his place in science. God created everything on the earth, and he made all of it for a purpose. Have you ever heard the joke about scientists who could create life?

One day scientists discovered a way that try could create human life with items found on earth. They immedietely called god down from heaven, and said that they no longer needed him, because they could create life on their own. So God said: “Okay, let’s have a test. If I can create a human faster than you, I win, if you do it faster, you win and I’ll leave earth forever.”

The scientists agreed, and went off to their lab with god. Once there, they picked up some dirt from the ground outside, and began to walk into the lab. God quickly stopped them saying, “Where are you going? That’s MY dirt.”

Humans use the word cold. It is not a scientific term. We measure temperature not hot or cold. People say something is cold when there is a lower temperature. The same could be said of light. We measure light in lumens when something has a lower value people say it’s darker. Darkness is not a scientific term.

Again both light and temperature can be measured. So we can quantify “darkness” and “cold” through some sort of measurement. We can actually see both even when they are extremely low in value “cold” or “dark” as opposed to “hot” and “bright.” You can’t measure God. There is no value for God and then some lesser value that would be equal to evil. The default value for God would then be zero to science. Meaning you would have to be able to measure some sort of value for God and then reduce that value until there is no God.

“We’ve never witnessed evolution. We’ve witnessed a series of adaptations that change a species. They aren’t evolving, as in forming a better, more complex organism”

You are completely off base on this one. Look up what evolution is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution It’s not an organism bettering itself. It’s adapting to survive. The series of small adaptations that you allude to is evolution. Some call it micro-evolution referring to macro-evolution being an entire species changes. The theory is not evolution. The theory that Darwin proposed is natural selection which was meant to best explain the diversity of life as well as these small evolutionary changes. Evolution does not contend that these changes will always be for the better. They are supposed to support life in the environment at the time. It is a means for a species to continue life by passing on the best traits to make the next generation better adapted to the environment at hand. Often the simplest organism is the strongest. That doesn’t mean it’s the best organism it could ever possibly be, just better suited to it’s current environment.

My point about darkness is this. The student states that darkness is the absences of light. That’s not completely true. Darkness could be the absence of the visable spectrum of light. The argument proposed that the emprical laws of science state if you can’t see it, touch it, taste it or smell it, it doesn’t exist, isn’t the complete story. What I’m pointing out is that even though you can’t visible see light it still exists and that darkness could be made darker by filtering more and more light. So the students argument is flawed. If you can’t see light doesn’t mean that you are completely void of all light. It means you can’t see the remaining spectrums with the naked eye, the visible spectrum has been filtered or removed. It’s still measurable. Unlike God, light is measurable and tangible. So darkness does not equal the absense of light anymore than evil equals the abence of God. God is not measurable to begin with so you are completely fabricating a God based on the fact that their is evil by saying that “well that’s where God doesn’t exist.” Besides he’s supposed to exist everywhere so how can there be a place he doesn’t exist?

A theorem has nothing to do with science. It’s a mathematical term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem

Look up what a theory is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory is not a guess that would be a hypothesis. A theory means that the hypothesis has been scienfically tested until found to be the best answer given the circumstances. By the way Newton’s Theory of gravity which was later changed by Einstein is still only a theory. Does that mean we are all going to start floating away.

“it’s my calling to evangalize my religion and tell people about Jesus, my savior.”

You are evangalizing falsehoods. That would be called lying. Wasn’t Jesus against lying? I’m trying to respect your beliefs. I’m not attacking your beliefs I’m attacking you for spreading these falsehoods. Beleive in a God. Have faith that he exists. Just don’t claim you can prove it with science.

Temperature: when you don’t have heat, humans use the word “cold” to describe what they feel when heat is no longer present.

We’ve never witnessed evolution. We’ve witnessed a series of adaptations that change a species. They aren’t evolving, as in forming a better, more complex organism, they are simply adapting to better survive to reproduce. We do know that natural selection occurs, hell, I witnessed it yesterday. A mother bird pushed two of her littlest babies out of a tree in my backyard. I’m not arguing that there are some parts of the theory (notice it’s a theory, not a theorum. Granted it’s a widely accepted theory) that make sense. But for the most part, there are too many holes and gaps in the theory that make it so it shouldn’t be even considered plossible.

As I can’t prove that god exists, you can’t prove that he doesn’t. As a catholic, it’s my calling to evangalize my religion and tell people about Jesus, my savior. I’m not saying that you have to adopt my thoughts and beliefs. I’m saying that we all have a right to our opinions, and that we should all respect each other’s opinions.

I never said, nor did the article. If I’m wrong about this, please explain, because I see nowhere that it said god has place in science. I see a professor being religion intollerant, and bashing a student for having faith that he can be saved by Jesus.

There is no great scientific conspiracy to cover up the existence of a god. If there were some sort of scientific proof for the existence of a god don’t you think some scientist would be jumping up and down screaming their head off that they had the proof that would win them the acclaim of nearly the entire planet as well as win said scientist multiple awards for the scientific achievement.

The straw man arguments above hold no value in science. A real professor would have easily picked these arguments apart. Hell I’m not a scientist, I’m in IT just like you, and I can pick it apart.

Keep God in your heart and in your mind. That’s where you can prove to yourself that he exists. That’s the only proof you really need for God. I remain skeptical because that’s my nature. I cannot prove God doesn’t exist and you can’t prove he does. No scientist is claiming he doesn’t exist if they do they do so out of personal opinion based on the evidence presented to them. In science Atheism is the default position. There is no God unless there is evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof is on the believer. That’s why many scientists are atheist or agnostic.

You can’t prove invisible pink unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster do not exist. Does that mean we should all spend our Sundays praising them?